CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Dismiss Claims against Defendant Fishburn and
Stay the Remaining Claims against United is granted. . )

IT 1S SO ORDERED.

Date: b, 2083



DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that the action should be stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) because
United has filed a petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code.

Under the bankruptcy code, the filing of'a petition for bankruptcy automatically stays “the
commencement or continuation... ofa judicial... action or proceeding against the debtor that was
or could have been commenced before the commencement” of bankruptcy proceedings. 11 U.S.C.
§ 362(a). Ilere, the complaint was filed on November 20, 2002; and United filed its petition for
relief on December 9, 2002. An order for bankruptcy relief was issued on December 9, 2002.
Therefore, pursuant to § 362(a), the action is stayed pending the resolution of United’s bankruptcy
proceeding.

Defendant also moves to dismiss the complaint as to Fishbum because (1) Title VI does not
create a cause of action against an individual or, alternatively, (2) the proceeding against Fishbum
should be stayed because the litigation against Fishburn threatens United’s property and would, in
effect, be a judgment against United.

Plaintiff’s Title VII claim against Fishburn is dismissed with prejudice. The complaint
alleges that Fishburn was Plaintiff's supervisor and that Fishburn offered to promote and/or transfer
Plaintiff in exchange for scxual favors. “[W)hile Title VII's definition of ‘employer’ does include
the term ‘agent,’ Congress intended only [that] employers . . . be [held] liable for their agent’s
actions under the traditional respondeat superior doctrine, not for agents to be personally liable.”

Gastineau y, Fleet Mtge. Co., 137 F.3d 490, 494 (7th Cir. 1998). Therefore, the complaint is

dismissed as to Fishburn.



Mine Order Fortv@06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

\ Assigned bu Sittiny if Oth
naa Magieate Sud John W. Darrah ‘har Aorved Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 8468 DATE 5/8/2003
CASE ANITA CRESS vs. UNITED AIRLINES, INC.
TITLE

[ln the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, und (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

[io

o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due.
(3) 0 Answer brief to motion due___—. Reply to answerbriefdue__
(4) o Ruling/Hearing onset for at _
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set tor/re-set for] on__——set for at.
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor__ at.
(7) im) Triallset for/re-set for]on at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Ilearing] held/continued to at__
(9) im This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COFRCP4(m) O Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP4Ka\(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2),

do) [Other docket entry] Status hearing held and continued to 7/8/03 at 9:00 a.m. Enter memorandum
opinion and order, The motion to dismiss claims against defendant Fishbum and stay the remaining
claims against United is granted.

al) [For further dctail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court,

No notices required,

Notives mailed by judge’s staff. MAY

number of notices

12.2003

Notified counsel by telephonc.

ao | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 farm, Purana paris
Copy tu judge/magistrate judge. soa
£ dete wild notice
courtroom
LG depuly's
initials
Date/time received in
central Cletk’s Office resilingdepaty ids



DOCKETED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MAY 1 2 200

EASTERN DIVISION
ANITA CRESS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No, 02 C 8468
v. )
) Honorable John W. Darrah
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., and )

WILLIAM FISHBURN, in his individual )
capacity and as agent of United Airlines, )
Inc., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Anita Cress (“Plaintiff”), filed a single-count complaint against Defendants, United
Airlines, Inc. (“United”) and William Fishburn (“Fishburn”), alleging violation of ‘Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seg. United moves,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), to dismiss. For the reasons that follow,
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Claims against Fishburn and to Stay the Remaining Claims against
United is granted.
LEGAL STANDARD
When considering a motion to dismiss, well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are accepted
as true. Turner/Ozanne v. Hyman/Power, 111 F.3d 1312, 1319 (7th Cir. 1997). Any ambiguities
in the complaint are construed in favor of the plaintiff. Kelly v. Crosfield Catalysts, 135 F.3d 1202,
1205 (7th Cir. 1998). Dismissal is proper only when it appears beyond doubt that plaintiffcan prove
no set of facts to support the allegations in his or her claim. Strasburger v. Board of Education,

143 F.3d 351, 359 (7th Cir. 1998).

lo



“Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a plaintiff ‘to sct out in detail
the facts upon which he bases his claim,”, . . he must ‘set out sufficient factual matter to outline the

elements of his cause of action or claim, proof of which is essential to his recovery.”” Benson v.
Cady, 761 F.2d 335, 338 (7th Cir. 1985) (intemal citation omitted). A complaint will not avoid
dismissal if it contains “bare legal conclusions” absent facts outlining the basis of the claims.
Perkins v. Silverstein, 939 F.2d 463, 467 (7th Cir. 1991).
BACKGROUND

For purposes of this Motion to Dismiss, the following allegations arc accepted as true,

Plaintiff was hired by United in June 1999 as a Customer Service Representative. Plaintiff
is still employed by United. Plaintiff's performance met United’s legitimate expectations. From
June 1999 to the present time, Plaintiff has been subjected to unwanted and offensive sexual
advances, innuendoes, and physical contact by United supervisors and employees. Plaintiff has also
been subjected to unwanted propositioning by supervisors. Specifically, two United supervisors
offered Plaintiff transfers and promotions if Plaintiff would consent to have sex with them. One of
these supervisors was Fishburn. Plaintiff complained about this unwanted behavior on numerous
occasions to her supervisor, Kevin Green; but neither Green nor United did anything. United did
not investigate Plaintiffs complaints.

After Plaintiff complained to Green, she was denied transfers and promotions. Plaintiff was
also denied security clearance to work in customer service. The complaint alleges that other
employees who had the same security clearance problems as Plaintiff but who had not complained

about scxual harassment were treated differently. The complaint does not allege what these security

clearance problems are,