her. Moreover, the bulk of these comments occurred eight and a
half months prior to Farfaras’ termination, with nothing in the
interim that even suggested that either Citizens Bank or Michael
Realty bore an animus toward Greeks, Therefore, Farfaras cannot
establish a prima facie case of national origin discrimination.

Similarly, Farfaras also lacks sufficient evidence regarding
her retaliation claim. Farfaras bases her retaliation claim upon
two types of allegedly “protected activity” she engaged in while
employed at Citizens Bank, First, Farfaras notes that she
complained twice about sexual harassment to Kenneth Meyer, a Human
Resources official at Citizens Bank. However, Farfaras comp?ained
in September 1999 and April 2000, thirteen and six months prior to
her October 20, 2000 firing, respectively. The Seventh Circuit has
held that a time lag of as little as four months qualifies as
“substantial,” and therefore “counter-evidence of any causal
connection.” Filipovic v. K & R Express Sys., Inc., 176 F.3d 390,
399 (7th Cir. 1999).

Farfaras’ second attempt to establish retaliation comes via
her theory that her rejection of sexually harassing advances
qualifies as “protected activity” sufficient to support a
retaliation claim, Farfaras correctly notes that one judge within
the Northern District, Hon. Matthew Kennelly, has opined that
refusing sexual advances can form the basis of a retaliation claim.

See Roberts v. Cook County, et al, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8089 at



discrimination) and VII (retaliation) and extends the effect of its

grant to cover Michael Realty as well. The Court DENIES Citizens

Bank’s motion as to Farfaras’ Count IV jséx d\scrimination).
Y

Michael Realty’s motion for summary judgmént is DENIED.

If I$ SO ORDERED. /

fos

_—
Ji t—
Harry D,. Leinenweber, Judge

United States District Court

Dated: dhegast feed



Smith v. Metropolitan Sch. Dist, Perry Twp., 128 F.3d 1014, 1023
(7th Cir. 1997). Citizens Bank properly acknowledges that
Farfaras’ sexual harassment allegations suffice to withstand
summary judgment on her sexual harassment count. Likewise, these
same allegations establish Farfaras’ prima facie case of sex
discrimination. Although Citizens Bank artfully purports that it
had a non-discriminatory reason for terminating Farfaras, the
weight and severity of Farfaras’ allegations, combined with the
alleged failure of Citizens Bank to articulate this reason at the
time of Farfaras’ termination, creates a triable issue of fact as
to whether this reason is mere pretext. Accordingly, the Court
denies Citizens Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the claim of
sex discrimination.
B. Michael Realty’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Michael Realty bases its Motion for Summary Judgment upon two
prongs. First, Michael Realty rejects that the “alter ego” theory
of corporate liability applies to it at all, and contends thal the
individuals accused of tortious conduct could have just as equally
been acting as the “alter egos” of Citizens Bank. Second, it
argues that because it has fewer than fifteen employees, it does
not qualify as an “employer” under Title VII for purposes of

Farfaras’ counts of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, national

origin discrimination, and retaliation.



*13 (N.D. Ill. 2004). However, Judge Kennelly’s opinion is a
minority one, and stands inapposite to several other cases within
the Northern District of Illinois. See Jones v. County of Cook
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13075 (N.D. Ill. July 17, 2002); Bowers v.
Radiological Society of North America, Inc., 57 F. Supp. 2d 594,
599 (N.D, Il]. 1999); Speer v. Rand McNaliy & Co., 1996 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 17071 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 1996), Finley v. Rodman & Renshaw,
Inc., 1993 U.S. Dist, LEXTS 17308 (N.D. Ill. 1993). Since the
Seventh Circuit has explicitly declined to address this question,
see Murray v. Chicago Transit Authority, 252 F.3d 880, 890 (7th
Cir. 2001), Court elects to side with the majority opinion within
its District - including an opinion previously voiced by this
Chambers - in declining to hold that rejecting sexual advances
qualifies as protected activity for purposes of making a

retaliation claim. arfaras thus also fails to establish a prima
facie case of retaliation.

The Court, therefore, grants Citizens Bank’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on the claims of national origin
discrimination and retaliation.

Farfaras does, however, assert a valid sex discrimination
claim. Citizens Bank correctly notes that the entirety of
Farfaras’ sex discrimination charges concerns her allegations of

sexual harassment. Nevertheless, within the Seventh Circuit,

sexual harassment is considered a form of sex discrimination.



operation of that business but does not provide the manager with
any instructions against committing intentional torts . . . then
the employer has constructively authorized any and all of the
actions of its manager and cannot shield itself from common law
liability”).

Similarly, for purposes of summary judgment, Michael Realty
cannot take advantage of Title VII's exemption for small employers.
The policy behind this exemption is “vitiated by the presence of an
affiliated corporation.” Papa v. Katy Indus., 166 F.3d 937, 940
(7th Cir, 1999). Here, although Citizens Bank is not a parent or
affiliate of Michael Realty in the traditional Manner,
nevertheless, as noted above, the two companies have sufficiently
common ownership and contro] to the extent of even allegedly
sharing employees, that the policy rationale against permitting
Michael Realty to hide behind the exemption remains intact,
assuming Farfaras can prove her allegations.

However, because the Court finds Farfaras’ claims of national
origin discrimination and retaliation to be meritless, the Court
extends its grant of summary judgment on those claims to cover
Michael Realty as well.

Tit. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Citizens Bank’s Motion for

Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court

GRANTS the motion as to Farfaras’ Counts VI (national origin



Munute Order Fam (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Harry D. Leinenweber Sitting Judge if Other
or Mayistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 8720 DATE 8/24/2004
CASE Jennifer Farfaras vs. Citizens Bank and Trust, et al
TITLE

Iln the following hox (s) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g,, plaintitt, detendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nuture
of the motion being presented.

MOTION:
DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) ao Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.)

(2) o Brief in support of motion due

(3) Oo Answer brief to motion duc Reply to answer briefdue__

(co) Oo Ruling/Hearingon set fora

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on __—set for at

(6) QO Pretrial conference[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for]on__set for at
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on_ at

(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continucd to at

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

COFRCP4(m) (C) Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) «ME [Otherdocketentry) ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Citizens Bank’s Motion
for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court GRANTS the
motion as to Farfaras’ Counts V1 (national origin discrimination) and VII (retaliation) and extends the
effect of its grant to cover Michael Realty as well. The Court DENIES Citizens Bank’s motion as to
Farfaras’ Count IV (sex discrimination). Michael Realty’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

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

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required
a “+ = _nuniber of novices

Notices mailed by judge's staff. AUG 3 oO2004

Notified counsel by telephone,

ae docked
| Docketing to mail natices, /
Mail AO 450 form. voce pone aes np dockeie Puy ints .
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. ves )
courtroom og LOT Wee dat ied nies
WAP deputy's
initials - +
Date/tio reecived ind ;
centyal Cleck's Office railing deputy initials



As to Michael Realty’s first claim, Farfaras has presented a
plethora of evidence linking Citizens Bank, Michael Realty, and the
individuals accused. Among other things, Farfaras has demonstrated
that Citizens Bank share common ownership, management, and
centralized control of personnel. This common ownership and
control by George and Robert Michael led to Farfaras’ wejl-
documented allegations of an unusual employment relationship.
Specifically, although Farfaras was nominally employed only by
Citizens Bank, she testified in deposition that George Michael (the
Board Director and co-owner of Citizens Bank, as well as the
President and co~owner of Michael Realty) regularly ordered her to
work at the Michael Realty office on “Michael Realty-type stuff.”

The Court notes that, by definition, an alter-ego strictly of
Citizens Bank would not demand that Farfaras, a Citizens Bank
employee, perform services for another company that did not benefit
Citizens Bank, while being paid by Citizens Bank. Therefore, the
only logical conclusion, drawing all inferences in favor of
Farfaras as non-movant, is that at least George Michael served as
the alter egos of both Citizens Bank and Michael Realty.
Consequently, Michael Realty can be liable under the Illinois
“alter ego” doctrine. Toothman v. Hardee’s Food Systems, Inc., 203
Ill. App.3d 521, 530-531 (I11. App. Ct. 1999) (“[w]here the employer
uses an alter ego/manager to conduct a particular portion of its

business . . . and gives that manager complete authority over the



failing to take appropriate steps to halt the persistent behavior,
Furthermore, Farfaras alleges that both companies are alter egos of
one another because they intermingle board members, officers and
employees,

For purposes of this opinion, the Court assumes the parties
are aware with the familiar “burden shifting” framework for
adjudicating whether a Title VII claim can withstand summary
judgment under the rubrics of discrimination and retaliation. See
Hudson v. Chi. Transit Auth., 375 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2004).

II. DISCUSSION
A. Citizens Bank’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Citizens Bank bases its motion for partial summary judgment on
its claim that Farfaras lacks sufficient evidence to go to trial on
her claims of national origin discrimination, retaliation, and sex
discrimination. Concerning Farfaras’ claims of national origin
discrimination and retaliation, Citizens Bank is certainly correct.
Farfaras puts forth no evidence of national origin discrimination
other than a few sporadic comments made by Citizens Bank officers
that one might interpret as derogatory to Americans of Greek
erigin. However, under Seventh Circuit law, the occasional “stray
remark” is not actionable unless it is related to the employment
decision. See Gorence v. Eagle Food Ctrs., 242 F.3d 759, 672 (7th
Cir. 2001). Here, Farfaras presents no evidence that these remarks

bore even a tenuous relation to Citizens Bank’s decision to fire



‘Nemployer” at all under Title VII because it lacks the requisite
number of employees.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS

Farfaras, a female Greco-American, wasS an employee of
defendant Citizens Bank from November 13, 1999 until her
termination on October 20, 2000. Although technically only on the
payroll of Citizens Bank, Farfaras also alleges that her job
required her to work for Michael Realty, a company located across
the street from Citizens Bank, Both Citizens Bank and Michael
Realty are at least partially owned by the brothers George and
Robert Michael, and each brother has an officer position in both
institutions. George Michael serves as President of Michael
Realty, and a member of the Board of Directors for Citizens Bank,
Robert Michael, in turn, serves as a member of the Board of
Directors of Michael Realty, and is Chairman of the Board of
Directors of Citizens Bank. On a daily or routine basis, Farfaras
alleges that George Michael, Robert Michael and Citizens Bank
President Tanglis intentionally sexually harassed her both verbally
and physically. Examples of such actions included improper
fondling, disparaging remarks about her marital status or Greek
nationality, and lewd sexual propositions. All actions occurred
without Farfaras’ consent and are alleged to have created a hostile

work environment for her. Farfaras further alleges that the two

corporations condoned the individual's actions by negligently



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

EASTERN DIVISION Fy L E fs

JENNIFER FARFARAS, AUG 2 4 2004
Plaintiff, ny Diane by tay
iad or NEN
.. ICT Cour UDR

Case No, Q1 C 8720
CITIZENS BANK AND TRUST OF
CHICAGO; MICHAEL REALTY & Hon. Harry D, Leinenweber
ASSOCIATES, INC.; ROBERT
MICHAEL; GEORGE MICHAEL; and
NICHOLAS TANGLIS,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Jennifer Farfaras (hereinafter, “Farfaras”) filed
suit against Defendants Citizens Bank and Trust of Chicago
(hereinafter, “Citizens Bank”), Michael Realty & Associates
(hereinafter, “Michael Realty”), Robert Michael, George Michael
and Nicholas Tanglis (hereinafter, “Tanglis”) alleging battery,
intentionai infliction of emotional distress, assault, sex
discrimination, sexual harassment, national origin discrimination,
and retaliation.

Citizens Bank has filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
seeking to dismiss Farfaras’ claims of sex discrimination, national
origin discrimination, and retaliation. Michael Realty has filed

a Motion for Total Summary Judgment on its behalf, claiming that it

neither served as Farfaras’ employer nor does it even qualify as an