Osco also argues that all of the claims other than those concerning Laye’s suspension and
discharge are barred by res judicata. Looking at Laye’s previously filed complaint, I must agree.
Laye’s previous complaint asserted claims of race discrimination under Title VII and § 1981 and
age discrimination under the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (“ADEA”) against Osco.
Specifically, Laye claimed that she was denied merit raises and promotions and was subjected to
a hostile work environment because of her age and race. In her current Complaint, Laye attempts
to assert the same claims concerning denial of merit raises, denial of promotions, and a hostile
work environment using the same nucleus of facts on which she based her previous complaint.
Since Laye’s previous complaint was dismissed with prejudice and, thus, received a final
adjudication on the merits, I find that her claims, other than those relating to her suspension and

termination, are barred by res judicata and should be dismissed on those grounds as well.
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

ENTER:

‘am¢s B. Zagel g
Unjted States Distriog Judge

DATE: _f dep 204


Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

James B. Zagel

Sitting Judge if Other
an Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 03 C 6496 DATE 9/7/2004

CASE ADELLAR LAYE vs. ALBERTSON’S, INC.

TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) i) Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
(3) im Answer brief to motion due. Reply to answer brief due.
(4) og Ruling/Hearing on _ set for at
(5) a Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor_ at
(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :
(7) im Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) im This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}
COFRCP4(m) OlLocalRule 41.1 CIFRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).
(10) Ml [Other docket entry] Defendant’s motion (13-1) to dismiss parts of plaintiff's complaint is granted.
Enter memorandum opinion and order.

(11) Wf [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed

uv | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice
courtroom a i

Dw deputy’s

4 on
2 Va i'd
initials

Date/time receiyed.in
central Clerk's, OMice

railing deputy initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

ADELLAR LAYE,
Plaintiff,

v. No. 03 C 6496
Judge James B. Zagel
ALBERTSON’S, INC., d/b/a OSCO DRUG
STORES

DOCKETED

Defendant. SEP 0 8 2004

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On August 7, 2003, Plaintiff Adellar Laye filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging that she was suspended on June 2,
2003 and discharged on June 24, 2003 because of her race, age, disability, religion and in
retaliation for filing a previous grievance with the EEOC. After receiving her Right to Sue letter
from the EEOC, Laye filed this Complaint on September 12, 2003. This Complaint was not her
first. Laye filed a similar complaint on December 9, 2002, which was eventually dismissed with
prejudice.

Osco now moves to dismiss parts of Laye’s Complaint. A motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) is proper where it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in
support of his claim, which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46
(1957). In reviewing a motion to dismiss, I must construe all allegations in the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all well-pleaded facts and allegations as true.

Bontkowski v. First Nat’l Bank, 998 F.2d 459, 461 (7th Cir. 1993).


Osco argues that Laye’s claims of discrimination based on national origin and gender as
well as Laye’s claims related to denial of merit increases, denial of promotions, and a hostile
work environment should be dismissed because they were not raised in her EEOC complaint. It
is well settled that a plaintiff cannot bring Title VII, ADEA, or ADA claims in a lawsuit that
were not included in her EEOC charge. Ajayi v. Aramark Bus. Serv., 336 F.3d 520, 527 (7" Cir.
2003); Conley v. Village of Bedford Park, 215 F.3d 703, 710 (7" Cir. 2000); Cheek v. W. & S.
Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497, 500 (7"" Cir. 1994). In determining whether an EEOC charge
encompasses the claims in a complaint, the proper inquiry is whether the claims set forth in the
complaint are “like or reasonably related to the allegations of the charge and grow out of such
allegations.” Jd. “The claims are not alike or reasonably related unless there is a factual
relationship between them. This means that the EEOC charge and the complaint must, at a
minimum, describe the same conduct and implicate the same individuals.” Id. at 501 (emphasis
in original).

In her EEOC charge, Laye references only discrimination based on race, religion,
retaliation, age, and disability. Thus, all of Laye’s claims of discrimination based on national
origin and gender must be dismissed.' Additionally, Laye’s EEOC charge does not allege any
adverse employment actions other than her suspension and termination. It does not make any
reference to denial of merit increases, denial of promotions, a hostile work environment, or
Osco’s alleged failure to accommodate Laye’s disability or religion. Since these claims are not

reasonably related to facts alleged in Laye’s EEOC charge, they must be dismissed.

" Laye also alleges “color” discrimination in her Complaint. | am merging this with her
claims of race discrimination.