United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MARY V. TRITSIS, Plaintiff,
BANKFINANCIAL CORPORATION, and BANKFINANCIAL F.S.B., Defendants.
G. Argionis One of the Attorneys for the Defendant
DEFENDANT BANKFINANCIAL CORPORATION'S RULE 12(C)
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
BankFinancial Corporation (“BankFinancial
Corporation” or “Corporation”) for its Rule
12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in its favor and
against Plaintiff Mary V. Tritsis'
(“Plaintiff”), states as follows:
the various iterations of amended complaints filed in this
District Court action, Plaintiff originally asserted
identical allegations of discrimination against two separate
and distinct entities.
defendant, Corporation, never employed Plaintiff, was
mistakenly named in the original complaint, does not have the
requisite number of employees to be subject to Title VII, and
remained as the only defendant in the District Court
litigation based solely on amended allegations relating to a
purported “joint employer” theory of liability.
but one of Plaintiff's claims against the second
defendant, BankFinancial F.S.B. n/k/a BankFinancial, National
Association (“Bank”), which was and still is her
actual employer, were deemed untimely and dismissed with
March 27, 2017, Bank was dismissed from the federal court
litigation and the parties were compelled to arbitrate
Plaintiff's remaining claim against Bank based on an
arbitration provision in Plaintiff's Employment
After this Court compelled arbitration between Bank and
Plaintiff, Corporation moved to stay litigation pending
arbitration, arguing that Corporation can only be liable for
the Title VII claims of gender discrimination under a
purported “joint employer” theory if Plaintiff
proves that claim against her actual employer Bank.
July 6, 2017, this Court granted Corporation's motion for
JAMS proceeding has been completed and on May 9, 2018 JAMS
entered a Final Arbitration Award in favor of Bank and
has filed a motion to confirm the May 9, 2018 JAMS
Collateral estoppel precludes re-litigation of issues in a
subsequent proceeding when (1) the party against whom the
doctrine is asserted was a party to the earlier proceeding;
(2) the issue was actually litigated and decided on the
merits; (3) the resolution of the particular issue was
necessary to the result; and (4) the issues are identical.
Plaintiff was a party to the JAMS earlier proceeding and the
issues of whether her allegations constituted gender
discrimination were fully litigated and decided on the merits
by Judge Keys as reflected in his May 9, 2018 ruling.
resolution of the issue of Bank's alleged discrimination
was necessary to the result and the identical allegations of
discrimination, via a purported “joint employer”
theory, are being asserted by Plaintiff, who participated in
the JAMS proceeding, against Corporation before this Court.
Accordingly, collateral estoppel is applicable and precludes
Plaintiff from attempting to re-litigate the same alleged
discriminatory actions ...