United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
DUSTIN M. HOVERMALE, Plaintiff,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant AFSCME Council 31’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 21) and Defendant Illinois Department of Human Services’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 25) to Defendant AFSCME Council 31’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (Doc. 21), but did not file a Response to Defendant Illinois Department of Human Services’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27).
I. Factual Allegations
Plaintiff filed his Complaint (Doc. 1) on September 4, 2014, against Defendants Illinois Department of Human Services and AFSCME Council 31. DHS Family Community Resources Center is also listed as a party in the Complaint, but was not listed in the caption.
The Complaint alleges that on or about April 3, 2014, Plaintiff was discriminated against by his employer, the Illinois Department of Human Services, due to his sex and disability. He claims “nepotism” and “a hostile work environment” in his Title VII claim based on two new female employees receiving more favorable treatment. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant AFSCME Council 31 is “AFSCME – No legal representation and access to state e-mails documents as evidence.”
According to the Complaint, shortly after being hired, Plaintiff was subjected to, “verbal abuse in a hostile or intimidating work environment.” (Doc. 1). He was required to perform training in East St. Louis and the “2 new girls” got to leave “sooner than me.” (Doc. 1). The new female employees were also given training in Springfield that was not provided to him. Plaintiff further alleges that his supervisor sent an email stating she would not certify him, “no matter how well I done in training.” (Doc. 1).
The Complaint states that the new female hires were provided more assistance than he was given and that he was subject to verbal abuse in that he was called, “slow.” He states he was not allowed to assist clients on the phone and was “yelled at” while helping clients. Further, he had a nose bleed at the office and phone his parents collect, but was called into his supervisor’s office and told that the State of Illinois would have to pay for the call.
Plaintiff filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the DHS Family Community Resource Center in Wabash County (“DHS”) (Doc. 1-1) which states that DHS had not provided reasonable accommodations for his disability and that he was discharged on May 12, 2014 in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
The EEOC made no findings with regard to the allegations and issued a Notice of Suit Rights. Plaintiff filed his Complaint within the 90 days provided and attached a copy of the EEOC decision to his Complaint.
On January 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Employment Discrimination Complaint (Doc. 19) adding the Illinois Department of Central Management Services (CMS) as a defendant. Although there are no allegations directed towards CMS in the Amended Complaint, there is a letter attached to the Amended Complaint addressed to the Magistrate Judge that states the Plaintiff is adding CMS for the purpose of a breach of contract claim. The letter goes on to state that the CMS website provides that a Social Services Career Trainee position requires on-the-job training for six months to a year and he was only provided training for approximately six weeks.
Defendant AFSCME Council 31 moves for dismissal stating that Plaintiff has failed to provide an EEOC right to sue notice with regard to AFSCME Council 31 and that the Plaintiff has set forth no factual allegations against AFSCME Council 31.
Defendant Illinois Department of Human Services (“DHS”) moves for dismissal arguing that the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 27).
II. Dismissal Standard
When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all allegations in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). This requirement is satisfied if the complaint (1) describes the claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests and (2) plausibly suggests that the plaintiff has a right to relief above a speculative level. Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 555; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); EEOC v. Concentra Health Servs., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007). “A claim has facial ...