~~

a

address was “Mr.,” “Ms.,” or “Mrs.,” despite a prompt on the form, so the only indication
of her sex is an inference from her name.

Plaintiff's claims of age, color, race and sex discrimination are not sufficiently
similar or related to her charge of disability discrimination to fall within the exception
provided in Cheeks. There is no reasonable basis upon which to infer that an EEOC
investigation into Roberts’ charge of disability discrimination would have also uncovered
possible discrimination based on age, color, race or sex. As a consequence, the defendant
was not afforded proper notice of those claims, and there was no opportunity to reach
resolution through the EEOC. The Court finds that plaintiff's age, color, race and sex
discrimination claims fall outside the scope of her EEOC charge, and, accordingly, the

plaintiff is barred from basing her request for relief on these claims.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons sct forth above, the Court grants defendant’s motion to dismiss
plaintiff's discrimination claims based on age, color, race and sex [doc. no. 10-1]. Only
her disability discrimination claim remains.

SO ORDERED ENTER: 9/9/03

HON. RONALD A, GUZM.
United States Judge



500 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47 (1974)).
The rationale is two-fold. First, the charge serves as notice to the employer of the
employce’s complaints. Rush v. McDonald's Corp., 966 F.2d 1104, 1110 (7th Cir.
1992). Second, the charge provides an opportunity for the EEOC and the employer to
investigate and resolve the disagreement, Jd, The courts have recognized an exccption to
the general rule when the additional claims are “like or reasonably related to the
allegations of the charge and growing out of such allegations.” Jenkins v. Blue Cross
Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 538 F.2d 164, 167 (7th Cir. 1976)) (en banc); see also Babrocky v.
Jewel Food Co., 773 F.2d 857, 863 (7th Cir. 1985).

The charge Roberts filed with the IDHR and EEOC clearly alleges that the
defendant discriminated against her on the basis of disability. The standardized form
used to file a charge requires the complainant to state the cause of discrimination, which
plaintiff identified as “physical handicap.” (Compl., Ex. 1.) The “issue/basis” of the
charge provided by the plaintiff is “failure to hire on August 10, 2001, because of my
physical handicap, visual impairment (AIDS [sic] associated disease, histoplasmosis.”
/d. The “prima facie allegations” stated by the plaintiff include the following: “I ama
physically handicapped individual;” “The manager was aware of my handicap by visual
observation [and s]he stated that she would try not to hold my disability against me;” “I .
. . was qualified to perform with a reasonable accommodation;” and “T was not given an
opportunity to request an accommodation.” Jd.

None of the additional claims raised in this suit are supported by the EEOC
charge. The charge states that Roberts’ date of birth is “00/00/00,” and her age is not
included anywhere on the form. Similarly, there is no reference within the charge as to

plaintiff's color or race. Plaintiff did not even indicate whether her preferred form of



Mining Order Fort (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of [linois

Name of Assigned Jud, 4 Sitting Judge if Oth
or Magistrate Judge Ronald A. Gueman than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03.C 1299 DATE 9/9/2003
CASE TIENRIEESE ROBERTS vs. GURNEE RADIOLOGY, LLC
TITLE

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

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

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

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

(3) o Answer briefto motiondue___—. Reply to answer briefdue____.

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon___sset for__ at

(5) | Status hearing set for 9/17/2003 at 9:30 A.M..

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continucd to] [set for/re-sct forlon___ set for at_
(7) a Trial[set for/re-set for] ont

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at.

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

OOFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP4I1(a\(1) CC FRCP4I(a\(2).

(io) {Other docket entry) ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court grants
defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff's discrimination claims based on age, color, race and sex [10-1].
Only her disability discrimination claim remains.

ai a (For further detail see order (on reverse side of/attached to) the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court,

No notices required. ;
umber of natices

SEP 12 2003

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notitied counsel by telephone.

¥ | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. tynod LO Lsig sn

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

eaampsty C1 ds3 9
courtroom

co deputy's 7 Long
initials H po
Datg/tithe eceived in
central Clerk's Office

mailing depaty initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
DOCKETED
SEP 1 1 2003

HENRIEESE ROBERTS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Judge Ronald A. Guzman

GURNEE RADIOLOGY, LLC, 03 C 1299

wee veneer

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Henrieese Roberts (“Roberts”) has sucd Gumee Radiology, LLC
(“Gurnee Radiology”) for discrimination based on her disability, age, color, race and sex
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000¢e ef seq.
(“Title VII’). Defendant has moved to dismiss or strike certain of these claims pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b). For the reasons provided in this

Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court grants defendant’s motion.

FACTS

On May 24, 2002, Roberts filed a charge of discrimination on the basis of
disability with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (Compl., Ex. 1., EEOC Charge.)!

According to Roberts’ charge, Gurnee Radiology had a job opening in August 2001,

"Because plaintiff attached to her complaint copies of her EEOC Charge and the Notice
of Right to Sue provided by the EEOC, the Court may properly consider them as part of the
complaint for purposes of the motion to dismiss, See FED. R. Civ. P. 10(c); Tierney v. Vahle,
304 F.3d 734, 738 (7th Cir. 2002) (holding that document attached to complaint becomes “part
of it for all purposes.”)



~

Roberts submitted her resume that same month to a Gurnee Radiology manager whom
she observed outside, and the company never contacted Roberts regarding the position
because she is disabled. Jd.

On November 20, 2002, the EEOC issued Roberts a Notice of the Right to Sue.
(Compl., Ex. 2, Notice of Right to Sue.) Roberts filed a civil action with this Court on
February 20, 2003, complaining that the defendant had discriminated against her on the

basis of her disability, as well as her age, color, race and sex. (Compl. 9.)

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a cause of action for discrimination based on age, race, color or sex. A motion to
dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint, not the merits of the suit. Aurry v.
Northwest Premium Servs., Inc., 144 F.3d 1037, 1039 (7th Cir. 1998). When ruling on a
motion to dismiss, “a district court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual
allegations and draw all rcasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Long v.
Shorebank Dev. Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court will deny a Rule
12(b)(6) motion “unless it is impossible to prevail ‘under any set of facts that could be
proved consistent with the allegations.” Albiero v, City of Kankakee, 122 F.3d 417, 419
(7th Cir. 1997) (quoting Hishon y, King & Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984).
Defendants arguc in support of their motion to dismiss that plaintiff's complaint fails to
allege a Title VII cause of action as to age, color, race and sex because those forms of
discrimination were not included in the underlying EEOC charge.

A plaintiff is generally not permitted to raise claims in a lawsuit that were not

included in the underlying EEOC charge. Cheek v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497,