United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Virginia M. Kendall United States District Judge.
Yvetta Massey filed suit against Defendants Churchview
Supportive Living, Inc., Gardant Management Solutions, Inc.,
and Kenyatta Bell alleging violations of the Rehabilitation
Act,  the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”),  and state law claims of Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress. This Court dismissed without prejudice
the state law claims against all Defendants and the
Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims against Gardant, and
granted Plaintiff's request for leave to file an Amended
Complaint. Plaintiff timely filed an Amended Complaint, which
renews only the allegations of violations of the
Rehabilitation Act and the ADA against each Churchview and
Gardant. Both Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss.
Churchview seeks dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)
and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) of the Rehabilitation Act claim
against it (Count I). Gardant seeks dismissal pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) of both the
Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims against it (Counts III and
IV). The Motions to Dismiss are granted in part and denied in
part for reasons set forth below. [Dkt. Nos. 38, 39.]
facts set forth in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are
accepted as true for the purpose of reviewing the Motions to
Dismiss. Reynolds v. CB Sports Bar, Inc., 623 F.3d
1143, 1146 (7th Cir. 2010). But for a few additions, the
facts are largely the same as those alleged in
Plaintiff's initial complaint.
Supportive Living, Inc. provides affordable assisted
facilities to the elderly in the Chicago area. (Dkt. No. 34
at ¶ 2.) Gardant Management Solutions, Inc. owns,
manages or is otherwise closely associated with Churchview.
(Id. at ¶ 3.) Churchview and/or Gardant receive
federal funds from various programs that provide financial
assistance for elderly adults' care in assisted living
facilities. (Id. at ¶ 36, 52.)
March 3 to November 11, 2015, Plaintiff Yvetta Massey worked
as the Director of Nursing (DON) at Churchview. (Id.
at ¶ 7-8, 16.) In 2015, Massey was diagnosed with a rare
condition known as Nesidioblastosis that requires her to eat
every two hours. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-11.)
Massey's employers knew of this condition and the need
for a workplace accommodation. (Id. at ¶ 13.)
the approximately nine months Massey worked at Churchview she
had several instances of extended absences. (Id. at
Ex. A.) As a result of these absences, Churchview issued
warnings-one verbally in July, and one in writing in
August-to Massey regarding her extended periods of time away
from work. (Id. at ¶¶ 14-15.) Finally, on
November 11, 2015, Churchview terminated Massey over the
phone and followed up with a written letter a day later
informing her of the same. (Id. at ¶ 16, Ex.
response, on January 8, 2016, Massey filed a charge with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging
employment discrimination based on her disability in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
(Id. at Ex. D.) The charge names “Churchview
Supportive Living” as her employer and sole respondent
of the charge. (Id.) In December 2016, the EEOC
informed Massey that it was unable to conclude there was any
violation of the ADA based on the information she provided.
(Id. at Ex. E.) The dismissal also served as
Massey's notice of her “right-to-sue” letter.
Amended Complaint alleges four claims against the Defendants.
Counts I and II are Rehabilitation Act and ADA claims levied
against Churchview for employment discrimination based on
Massey's disability. (Id. at ¶¶ 41,
47.) Counts III and IV are the same but levied against
Gardant. (Id. at ¶¶ 58, 64.)
survive a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), a complaint must
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742
F.3d 720, 728 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 566 U.S.
662, 678 (2009)). The Court “construe[s] the complaint
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepting as
true all well-pleaded facts alleged, and drawing all possible
inferences in her favor.” Tamayo v.
Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008).
However, “legal conclusions and conclusory allegations
merely reciting the elements of the claim are not entitled to
this presumption of truth.” McCauley v. City of
Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing
Iqbal, 566 U.S. at 678). The Court may also consider
exhibits attached in support of the complaint that pertain to
facts set forth within the pleading. Thompson v. Illinois
Dept. of Professional Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 754 (7th
Massey's Rehabilitation Act Claims against Churchview and
Gardant Are Not Dismissed
Court discussed in its previous Order, to succeed on a claim
of discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, plaintiff
must demonstrate that: (1) she is disabled as defined by the
Act; (2) she is otherwise qualified for the position sought;
(3) she has been excluded from the position solely because of
her disability; and (4) the position exists as part of a
program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Burks v. Wisconsin Dep't of Transp., 464 F.3d
744, 755 (7th Cir. 2006). Defendants argue that Massey ...