Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Joan H. Lefkow Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 4893 DATE 12/17/2012

CASE

TITLE

Moore vs. Super Star Tour

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Status hearing held on 12/11/2012 at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff failed to appear. This case is dismissed with

prejudice. Case is terminated. See statement section of this order for details. 

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

Lafayette Moore filed a pro se race discrimination complaint against Super Star Tour (“Super Star”), which

Super Star moved to dismiss on the ground that it was not Moore’s employer. The court granted the motion

but allowed Moore to amend his complaint to name his employer and/or to plead facts that demonstrate that

Super Star was his “de facto or indirect” employer because it “directed the discriminatory act, practice, or

policy of which the employee is complaining.” Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1088 (7th Cir. 2008)

(internal quotation marks omitted); see Dkt. #16. Moore filed an amended complaint (dkt. #19)1 which

contains more problems than the first. Moore’s amended complaint (dkt. #19) is dismissed and the case is

terminated. (The court held a status hearing on 12/11/2012 at 8:30 a.m. at which time Moore failed to appear

and the court announced its intention to dismiss on the record at that time. The reasons are explained below.) 

Super Star remains the only party Moore has named as a defendant and properly served. (See Dkt. #7.) 

Moore’s amended complaint largely alleges the same facts that the court found deficient in his original

complaint. Moore alleges that Melanie, a greeter for Super Star, wrote a letter of termination to his

supervisor Jennifer Gregory (who presumably worked for Royal Excursion, but this fact is not alleged), and

Moore was thereafter terminated. These limited facts do not plausibly suggest that Super Star was Moore’s

“defacto or indirect” employer. As such, the complaint is dismissed against Super Star.2

 

Moore makes additional allegations in his amended complaint against Royal Excursion, the company that

hired him as a shuttle bus operator in November 2011. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 3.) But Moore has not named

Royal Excursion as a defendant in this case nor has he served Royal Excursion. Moreover, the notice of right

to sue attached to Moore’s original complaint suggests that Moore filed a charge with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) against Super Star rather than Royal Excursion.3 As Moore is

undoubtedly aware, he must first exhaust his administrative remedies with the EEOC before filing a lawsuit

12C4893 Moore vs. Super Star Tour Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

1. The court will treat dkt. #19 as Moore’s amended complaint although it is captioned “Aiding and

Abetting” and is brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2, a criminal statute that is not applicable here. 

2. To the extent that Moore is attempting to allege a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress

against Super Star, see Am. Compl. ¶ 6, the court concludes that this claim is not viable based on the

limited facts contained in the complaint. 

3. Super Star, not Royal Excursion, is carbon copied on the notice of right to sue. Moore has not

submitted a copy of the charge he filed with the EEOC, but the court will infer from the notice of right to

sue that he filed a charge against Super Star. 

in federal court. There is no indication from Moore’s filings that he filed a charge against Royal Excursion. 

If he did, if he has received a notice of right to sue, and if not more than 90 days have passed since that

receipt, Moore may file another law suit naming Royal Excursion. For these reasons, this complaint is

dismissed and the case is terminated. 

12C4893 Moore vs. Super Star Tour Page 2 of 2