IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

JUANITA BALDERAS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 20-cv-01857 

v. ) 

 ) 

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COMPANY, ERICK CHASKO, ) 

and MARCOS SALAMANCA, ) 

 ) 

Defendants. )

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY’S 

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS 

NOW COMES Defendant, Illinois Central Railroad Company (“IC”), by and through its 

counsel, Johner T. Wilson III and Jessica E. Chang of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, and respectfully 

requests that this Honorable Court dismiss, with prejudice, the Fifth Claim for Relief in the 

Complaint filed by Plaintiff Juanita Balderas (“Plaintiff”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P. 12(b)(6), 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In support thereof, IC states as 

follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION1

Plaintiff Juanita Balderas (“Plaintiff”) began her employment with IC as a Laborer in 

Woodcrest, Illinois in December 2017. See Complaint, Docket #1, ¶14. In 2018, Plaintiff 

transferred to IC’s Kirk Yard located in Gary, Indiana. Id. 

On October 13, 2018, Plaintiff reported an alleged assault by Defendant Marcos 

Salamanca (“Mr. Salamanca”). See Dkt #1, ¶¶37 and 38. On October 17, 2018, Plaintiff talked 

 

1

 For purposes of its Motion to Dismiss only, IC herein accepts the facts as pleaded in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 
2 

with Manny Salazar regarding the alleged event. Id., ¶40. On December 13, 2018, Plaintiff 

received a letter from IC stating that the investigation against Mr. Salamanca was completed and 

that IC was unable to find of any violation of company policy. Id., ¶49 

On or around December 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination (“Charge”) 

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and an amended Charge on or around 

August 7, 2019 against Illinois Central Railroad Company (“IC”). Id., ¶9. In the Charge, 

Plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated based on her gender (female) in violation of Title 

VII of the Civil Acts of 1964. See Id., Exhibit A. On December 20, 2019, the EEOC issued a 

Notice of Right to Sue with respect to Plaintiff’s Charges. Id., ¶9. 

On March 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed her Complaint alleging five separate claims for relief, 

including violation of the Illinois Gender Violence Act, 740 ILCS 82, et seq. against Defendants 

IC and Salamanca (Fifth Claim for Relief). 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

A complaint must be dismissed when it fails to state a plausible claim for relief. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. lqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Plausibility is a twostep test: first, plaintiff's legal conclusions must be disregarded. Id. at 1949-50. Second, the court 

must be able to identify credible facts supporting each element of plaintiff's claims. Id.; Swanson v. 

Citibank, NA., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010). While the Court must accept all factual allegations 

pled in the complaint as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, the 

Court need not accept as true unreasonable inferences or conclusory legal allegations in the form of 

factual allegations. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 444, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). 

III. ARGUMENT 

Plaintiff’s Fifth Claim of Relief Fails to State a Cause of Action Because IC is Neither a Person 

Under the Illinois Gender Violence Act, Nor Did IC Personally Assist or Encourage Violence 
3 

Plaintiff wrongfully alleges in the Fifth Claim of Relief of the Complaint that Defendant, 

Illinois Central Railroad Company violated the Illinois Gender Violence Act (“IGVA”). Under 

the IGVA, gender-related violence is recognized as a form of sex discrimination and a person 

who has been subjected to such gender-related violence may bring a civil action for damages. 

740 ILCS 82/10. The IGVA applies to “persons” perpetrating the following acts: 

a) one or more acts of violence or physical aggression satisfying the elements of 

battery under Illinois law that are committed, at least in part, on the basis of a 

person's sex, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal charges, 

prosecution, or conviction; or 

b) a physical intrusion or physical invasion of a sexual nature under coercive 

conditions satisfying the elements of battery under Illinois law, whether or not the 

act or acts resulted in criminal charges, prosecution, or conviction. 740 ILCS 82/1 

et seq. (2004). 

A person "perpetrates the violence" either by personally committing the violence or by 

personally encouraging or assisting the act or acts of violence. Id. (Emphasis Added). 

Here, Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate based on the facts alleged in the Complaint, that 

IC personally committed gender-related violence or personally encouraged or assisted the acts of 

gender-related violence. Importantly, Illinois courts have expressly held that organizations or 

corporate entities are not considered “persons” for purposes of the IGVA. See Fuesting v. Uline, 

Inc., 30 F. Supp. 3d 739, 742 (N.D. Ill. 2014) ("A statutory analysis . . . demonstrates that the 

[Gender Violence Act's] cause of action cannot be brought against corporations."); Doe ex rel. 

Smith v. Sobeck, 941 F. Supp. 2d 1018, 1027 (S.D. Ill. 2013) (holding the Gender Violence Act 

did not apply to corporations); Flood v. Washington Square Rest., Inc., Case No. 12 C 5729, 
4 

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180879, 2012 WL 6680345, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2012) ("[T]he 

'person' who perpetrates gender-related violence under the [Gender Violence Act] cannot be a 

corporation."); Fleming v. Fireside West, LLC, Case No. 12 C 1436, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

178552, 2012 WL 6604642, *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2012) (holding that the Gender Violence Act 

"does not impose liability on organizations or corporate entities"); Fayfar v. CF Mgmt.-IL, LLC, 

Case No. 12 C 3013, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157940, 2012 WL 6062663, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 

2012) ("[T]he Court does not consider the [Gender Violence Act's] use of the term 'person' to be 

ambiguous: it refers to individuals, not legal entities."). So, IC is not a “person” as contemplated 

and defined by the IGVA, and cannot be liable because only a “person” who “personally” 

engages in or encourages the prohibited behavior may be liable under IGVA. Therefore any 

claim against IC under the IGVA should be dismissed. 

Even if IC qualified as a “person” under the IGVA, which IC vehemently denies, Plaintiff 

fails to allege any facts that IC personally committed, encouraged, or assisted any act or acts of 

violence. Plaintiff merely offers a threadbare allegation that “IC was informed of this conduct 

but took no steps to remedy or stop it.” Dkt #1, ¶ 91. As such, Plaintiff has not demonstrated with 

any factual content that her IGVA claims against IC are sufficient to allow the Court to draw a 

reasonable inference that IC is personally liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). 

Without pleading facts showing that it is plausible that IC personally encouraged or 

assisted any inappropriate physical contact, Plaintiff’s claim under the IGVA fails. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, Defendant Illinois Central Railroad 

Company prays that this Honorable Court enter an Order granting IC’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) 
5 

Partial Motion to Dismiss the Fifth Claim for Relief of Plaintiff’s Complaint, with prejudice, and 

for such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and appropriate. 

Johner T. Wilson III 

Jessica E. Chang 

DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP 

222 West Adams Street, Suite 3400 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

T: 312.372.6060

F: 312.372.6085 

jt.wilson@dinsmore.com 

jessica.chang@dinsmore.com

Attorneys for 

Illinois Central Railroad Company 
6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on August 11, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing using the CM/ECF 

system, which, consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, will effect service upon the following counsel of 

record: 

Jamie S. Franklin 

The Franklin Law Firm, LLC 

53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 803 

Chicago, IL 60604 

jsf@thefranklinlawfirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Juanita Balderas 

/s/ Johner T. Wilson III 

Johner T. Wilson III