Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Loretta Mcfarland v. the Hope Institute For Children and Families

May 2, 2013

LORETTA MCFARLAND, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE HOPE INSTITUTE FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sue E. Myerscough, U.S. District Judge:

E-FILED

Thursday, 02 May, 2013 04:54:28 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

OPINION

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Motion) (d/e 8). For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 6, 2012, Plaintiff, Loretta McFarland, filed a "Complaint of Employment Discrimination" (Complaint) (d/e 1) against Defendant, The Hope Institute for Children and Families. When filing her Complaint, Plaintiff used the standard form made available on the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois' website.

When filing out her Complaint, Plaintiff did not mark any of the boxes in Paragraph 7 to indicate the basis for this Court's jurisdiction. In Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Plaintiff checked the boxes that indicate she is alleging Defendant intentionally discriminated against her: (1) by retaliating against her because she did something to assert rights protected by the laws; (2) by coercing, intimidating, threatening, or interfering with her exercise or enjoyment of rights; and (3) with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Paragraph 12 instructs, and provides space for, Plaintiff to state the essential facts of her claim. Plaintiff did not include any factual detail and instead left the space provided blank.

Attached to the Complaint were two "Charges of Discrimination" (Charge) Plaintiff filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights filed on April 19, 2012 and July 20, 2012. The April 19, 2012 Charge of Discrimination alleges sexual harassment. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged a supervisor grabbed both of her legs and moved his hands up her thigh approaching her pelvic region. According to the Charge, this created a hostile and intimidating work environment and interfered with Plaintiff's ability to perform her duties. The Charge further alleged that Defendant knew what had transpired and failed to discipline the supervisor.

The July 20, 2012 Charge of Discrimination contains several allegations. Plaintiff alleged she was retaliated against for opposing unlawful discrimination after she filed an incident report and a "human rights charge" in which she alleged sexual harassment. The alleged retaliation included a 20 day suspension, intimidation, unequal terms of employment, and discharge.

Plaintiff also attached two "Dismissal and Notice of Rights" letters she received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that informed her the EEOC was closing its file on Plaintiff's Charges. See d/e 1 at p. 6 (dated October 26, 2012) and d/e1 at p.9 (dated November 17, 2012).

On February 22, 2013, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The federal questions posed by Plaintiff's claims of employment give this Court subject-matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §1331. Personal jurisdiction and venue requirements are satisfied because the relevant acts occurred in this judicial district. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980) (personal jurisdiction exists where a defendant "purposefully avail[ed] [himself or herself] of the privilege of conducting activities" in the forum state); see 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.