Subsequently, Plaintiffs were denied the right to make and enforce contracts enjoyed by
Caucasian SCC members and subjected to an “unwritten” rule that prohibited Plaintiffs’ seventh
graders from also playing on an eighth-grade team during the conference playoffs. Such
prohibition damaged the Plaintiffs’ post-season conference chances because two of the Plaintiffs
were also members of the eighth-grade team.

On December 18, 2001, Plaintiffs were intentionally subjected to racial hostility when a
Caucasian coach of Saint Linus refused to shake the hand of Plaintiffs’ coach solely because of
race. On January 20, 2002, Saint Bede players intentionally engaged in racially motivated
conduct and shouted racial slurs at “Boy Y”.

Cardinal George, upon request, failed to take remedial action to resolve the escalating
racial hostility toward Plaintiffs’ efforts to enforce their contractual rights when he knew or
should have known that Plaintiffs were being denied the same rights as non-African American
players and members.

Plaintiffs were also subjected to racially segregated facilities, inadequate facilities,
sometimes denied accommodations made available to Caucasians, subjected to racial insults,
forced to sit in racially segregated areas, subjected to racial profiling by suburban police,
subjected to racial isolation, and subjected to a form of racial silence solely because of their race
and their attempt to enforce their right to make and enforce contracts.

The SCC encouraged league officials to discriminate against the Plaintiffs by not taking
remedial or corrective measures and encouraged league coaches to threaten Plaintiffs with game
forfeitures because of the Plaintiffs’ race and their attempt to make and enforce contracts. The

SCC also conspired and encouraged official racial hostility and discrimination against the



Phelan and Mehalek. In light of these allegations, the Plaintiffs have pled a cause of action
under Section 1981.

However, Phelan and Mehalek correctly argue that because of the number of named
defendants, they are unable to adequately respond to the Amended Complaint because they
cannot properly determine which allegations are made agairst them. Accordingly, Phelan and
Mehalek’s Motion for a More Definite Statement is granted.

Based on the above, the Catholic Bishop and Cardisial George’s Motion to Dismiss is
Denied. Phelan and Mehalek’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. Phelan and Mehalek’s Motion for
a More Definite Statement is granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to make a more definite statement as
to all claims alleged against the “Defendants”, indicating which Defendant(s) the allegation is
made against. Plaintiffs’ more definite statement is to be filed on or before September 27, 2002.
All Defendants are to answer or otherwise plead on or before October 11, 2002. A status hearing

is scheduled for October 22, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. a

pat gf pon he uy 200% KL eA hel.

\ JOHN W. DARRAH
nited States District Judge



The Defendants proposed to admit the Plaintiffs into the SCC pursuant to racially
discriminatory and unequal terms and conditions of competition that required the Plaintiffs to
play all of their games on the road for five years so that white teams would not have to play at
Plaintiffs’ African American school and in an African American community. Plaintiffs were
required to play some away games at “neutral” sites because the SCC did not want African
Americans on their premises. In total, of the 13 games played at neutral sites, Plaintiffs were
required to play 8 games at such sites; this number is racially disproportionate to the number of
games played by Caucasian teams. These terms and conditions varied from the terms and
conditions agreed to with non-A frican American players and teams.

Defendants also failed and refused to protect the hezlth, safety, and welfare of the
Plaintiffs by failing to provide security or police presence at Plaintiffs’ away games.
Defendants’ failure to provide such services put Plaintiffs at risk of bodily harm and racial slurs
because of their race and their attempt to enforce their right to make and enforce contracts.

Cardinal George admonished priests, nuns, and laypersors that refused to admit Plaintiffs
into the SCC, but he failed to intervene after the Plaintiffs were admitted to the SCC when he
knew or should have known that Plaintiffs were being discriminated against solely because of
their race.

In August 2001, following negotiations with the SCC by Plaintiffs’ superiors, the
Plaintiffs again joined the SCC. However, the terms and conditions varied from the terms and
conditions agreed to with non-African American member basketball players and teams. At a
September 2001, SCC board meeting in which boys’ basketball was a discussion topic, no one

raised the issue of “special” or “unwritten rules” regarding the basketball playoffs.



Plaintiffs solely for the purpose of forcing the Plaintiffs out of the SCC.

The Defendants’ conduct discouraged Plaintiffs’ parents from participating in SCC
games in fear that Plaintiffs would be physically harmed, thus causing them to withdraw from
the SCC. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs sought to enforce their mediation rights, and Defendants
failed and refused to follow its own mediation procedures involving a racial incident.

1, Catholic Bishop and Cardinal George’s Motion to Dismiss

Catholic Bishop and Cardinal George argue that Plaintitfs’ Amended Complaint fails to
state a claim under Section 1981 for which relief can be granted.

To establish a claim under Section 1981, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of
a racial minority; (2) the defendant had an intent to discriminate on the basis of race; and (3) the
discrimination deprived the plaintiff of one or more of the rights enumerated in Section 1981,
ie., the making and enforcement of a contract. See Morris v Gffice Max, 89 F.3d 411, 413 (7th
Cir. 1996). The making and enforcement of a contract right under Section 1981 includes third-
party beneficiaries of a contract. See Jones v. Local 520, Int’! Union of Operating Eng., 603
F.2d 664, 665 (7th Cir. 1979).

The parties do not dispute that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled the first and second
element of a Section 1981 claim. As to the third element, Chicago Bishop and Cardinal George
argue that the Amended Complaint fails to allege any contractual relationship that would give
rise to a Section 1981 claim.

Plaintiffs allege that written guidelines, programs, and policies of St. Sabrina constitute a
contractual relationship with the Plaintiffs. In addition, the Catholic Bishop’s guidelines,

programs, and policies constitute a contractual relationship with the Plaintiffs. Defendants’



Mic Order Form (16/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge John W, Darrah Sitting Judge if Otuer
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 2261 DATE 9/11/2002
CASE CONSUELA SMITH vs. THE CHICAGO ARACHDIOCESE
TITLE

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

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

() a} Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) im Brief in support of motion due

(3) oO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue_

(4) a Ruling/Hearingon___—_—ssetfor__—_att

(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor att.
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on ss setfor_—— at.
(02) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on at.

(8) oO (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto_—at__—

(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

COFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

ao [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion And Order. The Catholic Bishop and Cardinal
George’s motion to dismiss is denied. Phelan and Mehalek’s motion to dismiss is denied. Phelan and
Mchalek’s motion for a more definite statement is granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to make a more definite
statement as to all claims alleged against the “Defendants”, indicating which Defendant(s) the allegation
is made against. Plaintiffs’ more definite statement is to be filed on or before 9/27/02. All defendants
are to answer or otherwise plead on or before 10/11/02. Status hearing is set for 10/22/02 at 9:00 a.m.

dl) of [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court. Document:
oo Number

No notices required. umber of patices

Notices mailed by judge's staff. SEP 1 2 200?

Notified! counsel by telephone. . dafedocketed =

wo | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. qyngc 22”

Seputy initials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

rt date madfed notice
courtroom

LG deputy's
initials — 4
Date/time received in

central Clerk's Office mating dcputy initials



alleged conduct deprived the Plaintiffs of the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services,
facilities, privileges, and advantages, including the right to make and enforce these contracts, in
respect to the athletic programs as are enjoyed by Caucasian citizens. Based on these allegations
and the facts set forth above, the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled that the Chicago Bishop and
Cardinal George interfered with the Plaintiffs’ right to enforce the contracts between themselves
and St. Sabrina and the Catholic Bishop.

2. Phelan and Mehalek’s Motion to Dismiss and for a More Definite Statement

Phelan and Mehalek argue that Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for
which relief can be granted because the Amended Complaint fails to allege that Phelan and
Mehalek discriminated on the basis of race or refused to make or enforce a contract with the
Plaintiffs. In the alternative, Phelan and Mehalek seek a more definite statement because they
are unable to respond to the allegations that simply allege that the “Defendants” engaged in some
type of conduct.

Other than the caption, Phelan is not named in the Amended Complaint except for the
allegation that he is the “chairperson of the Southside Catholic Conference [and] was unaware of

[the] ‘unwritten rule’” discussed above. Similarly, Mehalek is not named except for the
allegation that he is “the Southside Catholic Conference Commissioner [who] was unaware of
any ‘unwritten rule’ because all SCC rules are in writing.” Other than these two allegations,
Phelan and Mehalek are not specifically named in any allegations. However, the Plaintiffs do
make multiple allegations that the “Defendants” engaged in conduct that was based on race and

that such conduct interfered with the making and enforcement of the above contracts. Because

Phelan and Mehalek are named “Defendants”, these allegations, as presently written, include



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

CONSUELA SMITH, a mother and next friend of )
“BOY Y”, a minor; individually, AUDREY HAYES, _)
a mother and next friend of “BOY W” and “BOY X”, )
minors; FRANK and DEBRA GRIGGS, mother and
next friend of “BOY Z”, individually and on behalf
of the Parents and next Friend of the SAINTS OF
SAINT SABRINA BASKETBALL PLAYERS,

Plaintiffs,
No. 02 C 2261
Vv.

THE CHICAGO ARCHDIOCESE; CARDINAL
FRANCIS GEORGE; THE SOUTHSIDE CATHOLIC
CONFERENCE, a non-profit organization;
MICHAEL PHELAN, Southside Catholic Conference
Chairman; and MIKE MEHALEK, Southside
Catholic Conference Commissioner,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Judge John W. Darrah
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs filed a single-count complaint against Defendants, alleging Defendants
intentionally discriminated against them based on the Plaintiffs’ race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §
1981. Presently pending before the Court is the Chicago Bishop of Chicago! and Cardinal
Francis George’s Motion to Dismiss and Michael Phelan (“Phelan”) and Mike Mehalek’s
(“Mehalek”) Motion to Dismiss and for a More Definite Staternent.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the court reviews all facts alleged in the complaint and any
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Marshall-

Mosby v. Corporate Receivables, Inc., 205 F.3d 323, 326 (7th Cir. 2000). Dismissal is only

'Plaintiffs filed suit against the Archdiocese of Chicago, the legal name for the Archdiocese of
Chicago is the Catholic Bishop of Chicago.



warranted if the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of its claims that would entitle it to
relief. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).

A reading of the Amended Complaint supports the followirg summary of the alleged conduct
of the parties.

Plaintiffs are the parents and next friends of their minor sons, who are African American
students and basketball players of Saint Sabrina Academy (‘‘St. Sabrina”), an outreach ministry
of Saint Sabrina Church and grade school. The Catholic Bishop of Chicago (“Catholic Bishop”)
maintains an agency relationship with Catholic schools, including the schools’ athletic programs
and the Southside Catholic Conference (“SCC”). The SCC’ is an athletic league made up of
twenty-one white Catholic parishes that are members of and controlled by the Chicago Bishop.
Cardinal Francis George (“Cardinal George”), a white male, is the head of the Catholic Bishop
and the principal agent of Catholic parishes and the SCC.

In May 2001, St. Sabrina applied for membership in the SCC on behalf of the Plaintiffs
as third-party beneficiaries. That same month, Plaintiffs were intentionally denied membership
in the SCC by an 11-to-9 vote solely because of their race. ‘The SCC stated that the reason
membership was denied was because St. Sabrina was located in a high crime area and was
therefore unsafe for whites. These terms and conditions varied from the terms and conditions
agreed to with non-A frican American members and applicants

In June 2001, following a directive from the Cathol.c Bishop, Plaintiffs were granted
membership in the SCC. In consideration of the membership, the SCC received a $3,000
admission fee originated from athletic fees Plaintiffs paid to St. Sabrina. In July 2001, Plaintiffs

were intentionally forced to withdraw from the SCC solely because of their race.