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.

Tritsis v. Bankfinancial Corp.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois

March 27, 2017

MARY V. TRITSIS, Plaintiff,
v.
BANKFINANCIAL CORP., Defendant. v.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN, United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff, Mary V. Tritsis, filed a two-count Second Amended Complaint, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C § 1981a (“Title VII”) and the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) [49]. Defendant BankFinancial, National Association, f/k/a F.S.B. (“Bank”) move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and, alternatively, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) for lack of venue. For the reasons set forth below, this Court grants in part and denies in part the motion.

         Background

         The allegations in plaintiff's two-count Second Amended Complaint allege employment discrimination and retaliation stemming from her employment as a Senior Vice President with defendant Bank. The complaint alleges that Tritsis began her employment around July 2003 and that she and the Bank have been parties to a written employment agreement dated May 6, 2008, that has been amended several times. The most recent amendment to the employment agreement extends through March 31, 2016. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that the Bank has not offered Tritsis an employment agreement for the one-year term commencing April 1, 2017. (Dkt. 49, at ¶ 47). She alleges that other Bank executives, who did not complain of discrimination and retaliation, were offered employment contract extensions in 2016. (Dkt. 49 at ¶ 48). The other allegations remain the same as her previous complaint.

         This Court dismissed the original complaint on June 20, 2016, because Tritsis named only BankFinancial Corporation and not BankFinancial F.S.B. because the Corporation had never employed Tritsis and it did not have the requisite number of employees to be subject to Title VII. On September 21, 2016, this Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint because the 90-day period had expired and her second EEOC charge was simply a re-allegation of the discriminatory conduct in the first charge, and thus was also untimely, though it named the appropriate entity.

         On October 19, 2016, Tritsis filed a third EEOC charge for sex discrimination and retaliation “continuing action, ” stating:

BankFinancial F.S.B. has failed and refused to offer me a new employment contract for the period commencing April 1, 2017 because of my gender and because I have filed discrimination charges and a lawsuit against it and BankFinancial Corporation. BankFinancial Corporation and BankFinancial F.S.B. denied me stock options on the terms offered others, including on December 30, 2015.
I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my sex, female, and in retaliation for engaging in protected activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

(Dkt. 49-1, Ex. 3.) Tritsis also attached her first EEOC charge from December 14, 2015, which states:

I was hired by Respondent in or around July 2003. My most recent position is Senior Vice President. During the course of my employment, I have been denied promotion opportunities which similarly situated male employees have not. Further, I have been subjected to different terms and conditions of employment, including not being offered a contract extension which similarly situated male employees have. I complained to Respondent. Subsequently, I was offered a contract with a different compensation package.
I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my sex, female, and in retaliation for engaging in protected activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

(Dkt. 49-1, Ex. 1).

         Legal Standard

         A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint, not its merits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). When considering the motion, the Court accepts as true all well pleaded facts in the plaintiff's complaint and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor. AnchorBank, FSB v. Hofer, 649 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2011). To survive dismissal, the complaint must not only provide the defendant with fair notice of a claim's basis, but must also be facially plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). “A claim has ...


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.