United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
For U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff: Brandi Lorraine Davis, John C. Hendrickson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago, IL; June Wallace Calhoun, Diane Ilene Smason, LEAD ATTORNEY, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chicago, IL.
For Professional Freezing Services, LLC, Defendant: Elizabeth Hubbard, LEAD ATTORNEY, Elizabeth Hubbard Law Firm LLC, Chicago, IL; Brian Dean Ekstrom, John C. O'Connor, Pappas Davidson O'Connor & Fildes, P.C., Chicago, IL.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Rubén Castillo, Chief United States District Judge.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (" EEOC" ) brings this suit against Professional Freezing Services, LLC (" Defendant" ), alleging that Defendant refused to hire William Harvel on the basis of his disability in violation of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (" ADA" ), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is denied.
William Harvel is an individual who suffers from prostate cancer. (R. 1, Compl. ¶ 11.) Despite this disability, Harvel was able to perform the essential functions of a warehouse manager at all times relevant to the events that give rise to this suit. ( Id. ¶ 13.) Defendant is a business in the Northern District of Illinois that employs at least fifteen people. ( Id. ¶ 4.) Harvel filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging that Defendant had violated Title I of the ADA. ( Id. ¶ 7.) On March 15, 2013, the EEOC found reasonable cause to determine that Defendant had violated Title I of the ADA by refusing to hire Harvel because of his disability, and it invited Defendant to engage in informal conciliation efforts. ( Id. ¶ 8-9.) On April 5, 2013, the EEOC informed Defendant
by letter that an acceptable conciliation agreement had not been reached. ( Id. ¶ 10.) The EEOC filed this action on June 5, 2013, alleging that Defendant intentionally deprived Harvel of equal employment opportunities in violation of Title I of the ADA by refusing to hire him on the basis of his disability. ( Id. ¶ ¶ 12, 14, 15.) Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on July 1, 2013. (R. 8, Def.'s Mot.) The EEOC filed its response on September 26, 2013, (R. 13, Pl.'s Resp.), and Defendant filed its reply on October 11, 2013, (R. 22, Def.'s Reply).
A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) " challenges the sufficiency of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." Hallinan v. Fraternal Order of Police of Chi. Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811, 820 (7th Cir. 2009). When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, and draws all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008). Pursuant to Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must contain " a 'short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,' sufficient to provide the defendant with 'fair notice' of the claim and its basis." Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) and Bell A. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). " Detailed factual allegations" are not required, but the complaint " must contain sufficient ...