United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
GALO P. MACIAS, Plaintiff,
BAKERSFIELD RESTAURANT, LLC, Defendant
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.
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.
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,
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. ¶ 40.) Plaintiff ...