United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
ST. EVE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's
motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). . Also, the Court, in its discretion,
grants in part and denies in part Defendant's request to
strike certain allegations under Rule 12(f). Defendant shall
file its answer by February 23, 2018. Status hearing set for
March 28, 2018 is stricken and reset to February 27, 2018 at
November 21, 2017, Plaintiff Lucas Behn filed a First Amended
Complaint against his former employer Defendant Kiewit
Infrastructure Co. alleging violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101,
et seq. Before the Court is Defendant's Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's ADA claims. For
the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in
part Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The remaining
claim in this lawsuit is Plaintiff's ADA discrimination
claim. Also, the Court, in its discretion, grants
Defendant's request to strike Plaintiff's Title VII
allegations in the First Amended Complaint, but denies
Defendant's request to strike Plaintiff's punitive
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) challenges the viability of a complaint by arguing
that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.” Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers,
Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2014); see also
Hill v. Serv. Emp. Int'l Union, 850 F.3d 861, 863
(7th Cir. 2017). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must include
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). Pursuant to the federal pleading standards, a
plaintiff's “factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level.”
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127
S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Put differently, a
“complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173
L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570). When determining the sufficiency of a complaint under
the plausibility standard, courts must accept “as true
all well-pleaded factual allegations and drawing all
reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.”
Bancorpsouth, Inc., v. Fed. Ins. Co., 873 F.3d 582,
585 (7th Cir. 2017).
25, 2013, Plaintiff started working for Defendant as an
infrastructure construction laborer. (R. 20, First Am. Compl.
¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges that during all times relevant
to this lawsuit, he had been previously diagnosed with
diabetes within the definition of a disability under the ADA.
(Id. ¶¶ 12, 13.) Further, Plaintiff
asserts that Defendant knew of his disability, medical
diagnosis, and condition of diabetes. (Id. ¶
14.) He alleges that during his employment with Defendant, he
was subjected to harassment, intimidation, different terms
and conditions of employment, and denied reasonable
accommodations based on his disability. (Id. ¶
15.) In particular, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered a
diabetic episode at the end of his work shift while in the
employee locker room, yet Defendant failed to provide him
medical leave so he could resolve and manage his diabetes.
(Id. ¶ 15(a).)
particular, after his diabetic episode at work, Plaintiff
conferred with his treating physicians and diabetes medical
specialists, who recommended that Plaintiff apply for
eligibility to receive a diabetes insulin pump and
transmitter. (Id. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff then filed
the necessary documentation and applied for an insulin pump
and transmitter - notifying his project manager and labor
foreman that the approval period to receive the pump and
transmitter was approximately 4-6 weeks. (Id.
¶¶ 18, 19.) As such, Plaintiff requested short-term
medical leave allowing him to return thereafter with his
diabetes medical devices. (Id. ¶ 19.) According
to Plaintiff, Defendant failed to provide him with the short
term medical leave and subsequently failed to provide him
continued employment. (Id. ¶¶ 20, 21.)
filed his EEOC Charge on December 19, 2014 stating that
Defendant discriminated against him based on his disability.
(R. 20-1, EEOC Charge). Specifically, in his EEOC Charge,
I began my employment with Respondent on or about July 25,
2013. My most recent position was Laborer. During my
employment, Respondent became aware of my disability.
Subsequently, I was discharged.
I believe I was discriminated against because of my
disability in violation of the Americans with Disability Act
of 1990, as amended.
Plaintiff checked the disability box on his EEOC Charge.
(Id.) Plaintiff's EEOC right to sue letter is