Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Ronald A. Guzman Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 4496 DATE 1/9/2013

CASE

TITLE

Monica A. Washington vs. YMCA of Metropolitan Chicago

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court denies defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s third amended

complaint [34]. Defendant’s answer to the third amended complaint is to be filed on or before January 21, 2013.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint alleging that defendant refused to hire her and retaliated against her

because of her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Defendant asks the Court

to dismiss the third amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons

set forth below, the motion is denied.

Facts

Plaintiff has Cerebral Palsy, which “is visible to the eye” and affects her speech and motor movements. 

(3d Am. Compl. ¶ 12.) On July 28, 2011, she submitted an on-line employment application to defendant for an

After School ALO Facilitator position. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) On August 3, 2011, defendant interviewed plaintiff. (Id.

¶¶ 5, 7.) On August 4, 2011, defendant sent an email to plaintiff stating that she had not been selected for the

job because “another candidate’s qualifications more closely match[ed] [defendant’s] requirements.” (Id. ¶ 9;

id., Ex. F, 8/4/11 Email from Vasselli to Washington.) After plaintiff received the email, she tried, but was

unable, to access her application materials from defendant’s website. (Id. ¶ 10.)

On August 26, 2011, plaintiff saw that defendant had posted the After School ALO Facilitator position

on Craig’s List. (Id. ¶ 12.) Though the Craig’s List job description “looked different” from the one defendant 

had given plaintiff, “all the requirements where [sic] the same.” (Id.) 

Discussion

Defendant contends that the third amended complaint should be dismissed because it does not contain

“a short and plain statement of the claim[s]” as required by Rule 8(a)(2). In fact, plaintiff’s allegations are more

than sufficient to satisfy the lenient pleading standards applied to pro se complaints. See Marshall v. Knight, 445

F.3d 965, 969 (7th Cir. 2006).

12C4496 Monica A. Washington vs. YMCA of Metropolitan Chicago Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT

Defendant also argues that plaintiff’s ADA retaliation claim should be dismissed for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. Exhaustion, however, is an affirmative defense that “defendant bears the burden of

pleading and proving.” See Williams v. Runyon, 130 F.3d 568, 573 (7th Cir. 1997). Thus, it is not an appropriate

basis for a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. See Xechem, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 372 F.3d 899, 901 (7th Cir.

2004) (“Orders under Rule 12(b)(6) are not appropriate responses to the invocation of defenses, for plaintiffs

need not anticipate and attempt to plead around all potential defenses.”). 

Finally, defendant asks the Court to strike the exhibits attached to the third amended complaint because

they are “redundant, immaterial and impertinent.” (Mot. Strike & Dismiss 3d Am. Compl. at 5.) On the contrary,

the exhibits – the job descriptions, plaintiff’s application, defendant’s interview notes and rejection email to

plaintiff, the EEOC intake questionnaire and the right to sue letter – are directly relevant to plaintiff’s allegations. 

Thus, the motion to strike is denied.

12C4496 Monica A. Washington vs. YMCA of Metropolitan Chicago Page 2 of 2