Summary
finding that although plaintiffs need not plead "unknown details" such as the names or salaries of specific colleagues, "[w]ithout some description of the comparable male's position and duties, as compared to Plaintiff's duties, no inference of plausibility arises to support her conclusion that the work was equal"
Summary of this case from Karlo v. St. Augustine Coll.Opinion
No. 09-1225.
January 26, 2010
ORDER
On December 22, 2009, a Report Recommendation [#11] was filed by Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore in the above captioned case. More than ten (14) days have elapsed since the filing of the Report Recommendation, and no objections have been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015 (7th Cir. 1988); and Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). As the parties failed to present timely objections, any such objections have been waived. Id.
The relevant procedural history is sufficiently set forth in the comprehensive Report Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Suffice it to say that Plaintiff has brought this litigation alleging violations of the federal Equal Pay Act and Illinois' Equal Pay Act, Title VII sex discrimination and reprisal for protected activity. Defendant Morton Buildings, Inc. ("Morton Buildings") has moved to dismiss Plaintiff Shana Wade's ("Wade") Complaint pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
The Court agrees that Wade's allegations are too conclusory to give Morton Buildings fair notice of Counts I-V or to make those counts plausible, and that Counts I-IV do not satisfy Fed. Rule Civ. P. 8. The Court further agrees with the Magistrate Judge that as pled, Count V is either duplicative of Count IV or it is an insufficient attempt to make out a disparate impact claim. Finally, the Court agrees that Wade's description of her protected activity is not sufficient under Rule 8. The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Wade has not met the notice pleading standards as described in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009), and its Seventh Circuit progeny, but should be given an opportunity to file an amended complaint that meets those standards.
Accordingly, the Court now adopts the Report Recommendation [#11] of the Magistrate Judge in its entirety. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [#7] is GRANTED, and therefore, Wade's Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff must file her amended complaint within 21 days after entry of this Order. Morton Buildings' request for costs and attorney fees is DENIED. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.