of“employer.” Shannon v. Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Intern’ Union,

2003 WL 1338457, *4 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (citing Williams v. Banning, 72 F.3d 552, 554
(7th Cir. 1995)). According to Title VI, an “employer” is defined as “a person
engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each
working day in each of twenty or more calender weeks in the current or preceding
calender year [of the alleged violation.]” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). For this reason, T: itle
VII “is not available to employees who work in relatively small businesses.” Walker
v. Abbott Laboratories, 340 F.3d 471, 474 (7th Cir. 2003).

We agree with the EEOC and IDHR in their conclusion that CCT is not an
“employer” under Title VII. White’s Complaint contains no allegation that CCT ever
employed fifteen or more employees, which alone is sufficient to warrant dismissal of
his Title VII claim. Robinson v. Sabis Education Systems, Inc., 1999 WL 414262, *6
(N.D. II. 1999). Furthermore, it appears that White could not make such an allegation
in good faith. According to CCT’s Quarterly Federal Tax Returns, CCT never even
employed more than ten employees during the 2001 and 2002 calender years. Because
CCT did not employ fifteen or more employees during the year preceding and the year
of its alleged Title VII violations, Title VII is not applicable to CCT. For this reason,

White’s Title VII count must be dismissed.

-4-



ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 20006 et seq., and wrongfully
compensated in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (“EPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d).
White asks that this court direct CCT to rehire him as well as to award White back pay,
future pay, and three years of vacation pay. CCT moves to dismiss both the Title VII
and EPA counts in its unopposed motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
"The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the complaint,

not to decide the merits." Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir.

1990) (quoting Triad Assocs., Inc. v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 892 F.2d 583, 586 (7th Cir.

1989)). A complaint need only specify "the bare minimum facts necessary to put the

defendant on notice of the claim so that he can file an answer." Higgs v. Carver, 286

F.3d 437, 439 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Beanstalk Group, Inc. v. AM General Corp., 283
F.3d 856, 863 (7th Cir. 2002)). Dismissal is proper only when "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). With these
principles in mind, we now address the motion before us.
DISCUSSION

White’s Title VIL Count

White first alleges that CCT discriminated against him in violation of Title VI.
In order to be liable under Title VII, a defendant must fall under the statute’s definition

-3-



¢

White’s EPA Count

White next alleges that CCT engaged in wage discrimination in violation of the
EPA. The EPA “is narrowly focused on the problem of wage differentials based on sex
[and] its broad remedial purpose is the elimination of sexual discrimination against
women.” Ende v. Board of Regents of Regency Universities, 757 F.2d 176, 183 (7th
Cir. 1985). To achieve its statutory aim, the EPA prohibits wage discrimination only
“on the basis of sex.” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the EPA
does not apply to wage discrimination on the basis of race or national origin. Pyke v.
Metro Children and Adolescent_Institute, 1998 WL 142373, *5 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
Because White does not allege wage discrimination on the basis of his sex, his EPA
count must be dismissed as well.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, CCT’s motion to dismiss is granted in its

entirety.
Charles P. Kocoras
Chief Judge
United States District Court
NOV ~ 4 2003
Dated:

5.



United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

f Assigned Jud; Sitting Judge if Oth
Li or Magistrate Judge Charles P. Kocoras than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 5925 DATE 11/4/2003
CASE White vs. Chicago Cooling Tower
TITLE

Lin 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:

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

(2) o Brief in support of motion due

@) a Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue___.

(4) oO Ruling/Hearingon set for___at

(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set forlon__—setfor___—_att

(6) ira) Pretrial conference[held/continued to] {set for/re-set for]on__—_esetfor__——saat_—
(7) im) Trial{set for/re-set for]on___—_at

(8) oO (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to___at

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

OOFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a\(1) CFRCP41(a)(2).

ao) «of [Other docket entry) ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION: Defendant’s motion (Doc 9-1) to
dismiss is granted in its entirety. Ruling set for November 13, 2003 is stricken.

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

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

umber of notices

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

4 2003

Notified counsel by telephone. date diekeied

Copy to jud| agistrate judge.

VY | Docketing to mail notices. My
- ul ita) ae
v ie LUNG Jortre: isn docket ag Aeputy inidts |

woy 04 2088

~ OR ED date maited notice

\I - “ig
| esirtroom
scT deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
MIKE S. WHITE, )
Plaintiff,
vs. 03C5925
CHICAGO COOLING TOWER, ae
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES P. KOCORAS, Chief District Judge:

This matter comes before the court on Defendant Chicago Cooling Tower, Inc.’s
(“CCT”) motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For
the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND
Because this is a motion to dismiss, we accept all well plead facts and allegations

in the complaint as true and construe all inferences in favor of the Plaintiff. Thompson

y. Illinois Dep’t of Prof] Regulation, 300 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir. 2002). Furthermore,

because the Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, this court will employ a more liberal standard
of review than would otherwise be used. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
From November 1998 until March 1, 2002, Plaintiff Michael White was an

employee at CCT, working as a cooling tower technician. Throughout this time period,


White’s job performance more than met CCT’s standards. Beginning in February
2002, White was subjected to harassment from his supervisor Jose Lopez, who
welcomed White on a daily basis with the greeting “What’s up, my nigger?” White,
who is African-American, found this greeting offensive and made Lopez, and CCT’s
owner Tim Hesterman, aware of his feelings on more than one occasion. Also in
February 2002, White received a lower salary and less vacation pay than a similarly
situated co-worker named Mario (last name unknown), who performed the same job
as White but was not African-American. On March 1, 2002, White was discharged by
CCT. CCT’s reason for firing White was that he refused to work on Saturdays. Mario,
who also refused to work on Saturdays, was not discharged.

On March 25, 2002, White filed a charge of race discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Illinois Department of
Human Rights (“IDHR”). White alleged that he was harassed, subject to unequal pay,
and discharged because he was African-American. The EEOC and IDHR dismissed
White’s claims, in their entirety, for lack of jurisdiction. The EEOC and IDHR based
their dismissal on the fact that CCT employed less than fifteen employees, and thus did
not meet the definition of “employer” under the applicable statutes.

On September 2, 2003, White filed the present action with this court. White’s

complaint alleges that he was wrongfully terminated by CCT in violation of Title VII

-2-