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.

Macias v. Bakersfield Restaurant, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

May 28, 2014

GALO P. MACIAS, Plaintiff,
v.
BAKERSFIELD RESTAURANT, LLC, Defendant

Page 923

For Galo P. Macias, Plaintiff: Michael T. Smith, LEAD ATTORNEY, Michael T. Smith & Associates, Roselle, IL; Joshua D. McCann, Law Offices of Joshua D. McCann, Chicago, IL.

For Bakersfield Restaurant LLC., Defendant: Emily A. Shupe, LEAD ATTORNEY, Derek M. Johnson, Rathje & Woodward LLC, Wheaton, IL.

Page 924

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Ruben Castillo, Chief United States District Judge

Galo P. Macias (" Plaintiff" ) brings this action against Bakersfield Restaurant, LLC (" Defendant" ), alleging national origin and racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (" Title VII" ), racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and retaliatory discharge in violation of state law. (R. 14, Am. Compl.) Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts I and II of Plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (R. 16, Def.'s Mot.) For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Defendant's motion.

RELEVANT FACTS

Plaintiff is a Hispanic adult male of Ecuadorian descent and a resident of Darien, Illinois. (R. ¶ 4, Am. Compl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff worked for Defendant until his discharge in August 2012. ( Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff claims that he was " treated less favorably than" non-Ecuadorian and non-Hispanic individuals in his work environment despite meeting the " legitimate expectations of his employer" and " performing his job well." ( Id. ¶ ¶ 8, 9, 16.) Plaintiff alleges that during his employment, he was subjected to several race and national origin-related comments by his supervisor, Frank Mnuk. ( Id. ¶ 7.) These comments include: (a) " Mexicans are dirty to work with" ; (b) " You Mexicans stink!" ; (c) " You fucking Mexicans are stupid" ; and (d) " Fucking Mexicans!" ( Id. )

On or about June 28, 2012, Plaintiff's iPhone went missing, and he reported the matter to Mnuk. ( Id. ¶ ¶ 24, 25.) Mnuk replied that he had not seen the cellular phone, but he " bet one of these Mexicans took it." ( Id. ¶ 25.) Plaintiff later used an iPhone-locator application to determine the location of his phone and drove to the specified address, where he discovered Mnuk's vehicle. ( Id. ¶ 26.) Plaintiff subsequently contacted Brian Wright, Defendant's Executive Chef and Mnuk's supervisor,

Page 925

to report that he believed Mnuk stole his iPhone. ( Id. ¶ 27.) Wright advised Plaintiff that he would handle the matter and requested that Plaintiff refrain from contacting the police. ( Id. )

As Plaintiff stood outside Mnuk's home, Mnuk came outside and searched his own vehicle with a flashlight, but he did not find the iPhone. ( Id. ¶ 28.) Plaintiff informed Mnuk that the locator application indicated the cellular phone was inside of Mnuk's home. ( Id. ) Mnuk, however, did not offer to let Plaintiff wait while Mnuk searched his home. ( Id. )

The next day, Mnuk advised Plaintiff that he still had not found the iPhone, and Mnuk gave Plaintiff permission to search his vehicle. ( Id. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff searched Mnuk's vehicle and found the cellular phone, which had sustained water damage. ( Id. ¶ 31.) Plaintiff again reported the matter to Wright. ( Id. ¶ 32.) Wright agreed to meet with Plaintiff on June 30, 2012. ( Id. ) When Plaintiff arrived to meet Wright, Mnuk told Plaintiff that Wright was not scheduled to work, and inquired what Plaintiff wanted or was attempting to do. ( Id. ¶ 33.) Plaintiff responded that he wanted his iPhone in good condition. ( Id. ) Mnuk initially refused but eventually agreed to give Plaintiff a new cellular phone, which Wright later assured Plaintiff he would receive. ( Id. ¶ ¶ 33, 34.) Plaintiff alleges that after this exchange, Mnuk acted aggressive towards him, making race and national origin-related comments to him about " Mexicans." ( Id. ¶ 35.)

Plaintiff still had not received a working phone by July 7, 2012, so he reported to the police that his cellular phone was stolen and returned broken. ( Id. ¶ 36.) The next day, Mnuk sent Plaintiff a text message stating he would bring Plaintiff a new cellular phone. ( Id. ¶ 37.) During the next week, Mnuk began training a coworker for Plaintiff's job, declaring that he would make sure Plaintiff lost his job. ( Id. ¶ 38.) On July 12, 2012, Mnuk brought Plaintiff a used cellular phone. ( Id. ¶ 39.) Plaintiff also was not scheduled to work after this date. ( Id. ΒΆ 40.) Plaintiff ...


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.