Copot v. Stewart Title Guar. Co.

EDDY COPOT, Plaintiff, v. STEWART TITLE GUARANTY CO. and SCOTT MCBEE, Defendants.

Case No. 19 C 6987

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

April 13, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:

Eddy Copot has sued his former employer, Stewart Title Guaranty Company, and its chief claims counsel and associate general counsel Scott McBee. Copot has alleged discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA), and he asserts other claims under state law. The defendants have moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss all of Copot's claims. For the reasons stated below, the Court grants the motion to dismiss in part and denies it in part.

Background

At this stage, the Court accepts as true the facts alleged in the complaint. O'Boyle v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., 910 F.3d 338, 342 (7th Cir. 2018). Stewart Title issues and underwrites title insurance policies. Copot is a lawyer. In April 2017, he started working at Stewart Title's office in Addison, Illinois as a claims counsel. In that role, he reviewed and issued decisions on title insurance claims. He reported to Stewart Title's associate chief claims counsel Charity Makela, who in turn reported to McBee. In June 2018, Makela left the company, and Stewart Title promoted two female attorneys within the claims department. Kelly Rickenbach, who was based in a different office, took over Makela's responsibilities. Eleanor Sharpe became the managing counsel of Stewart Title's Addison office.

In the summer of 2018, Rickenbach informed Copot of a new company policy requiring employees in the claims department to obtain permission from management before attending continuing education classes. Stewart Title asked three other employees in the department (including, apparently, two men) about this policy, and none of them had heard of it. In August 2018, Copot requested Rickenbach's permission to attend a continuing education class. She did not reply, so the next day he contacted Sharpe, who gave him permission to attend the class.

On August 24, 2018, Copot sought permission from Rickenbach to take sick days from August 27 to August 29 while he underwent and recovered from surgery. Rickenbach sent him an e-mail stating that Stewart Title required employees to provide a "valid doctor's note indicating the illness and need to stay home" for sick leaves lasting more than two days. Compl. (dkt. no. 1) ¶ 113. She asked him to send her a doctor's note when he returned to work. Copot had never heard of that policy, and two female employees who had taken lengthy sick leaves told Copot that they also were unaware of it.

About a week later, Rickenbach sent an e-mail to Copot indicating that his request for sick leave had been denied. She again asked him to send her a doctor's note. A few days later, Copot sent her a "Statement of Services," which his doctor hadtold him should suffice as a doctor's note. Id. ¶¶ 120, 122. But Rickenbach told Copot that Stewart Title needed a signed note by a doctor specifically stating that he had been treated on the dates for which he had taken leave. The complaint does not indicate whether Copot ever provided Rickenbach with such a note.

Copot has also made allegations regarding how Rickenbach instructed him to deal with requests from customers that Stewart Title reconsider its claim decisions. Previously, Makela and other claims counsel had told Copot that when a customer requested reconsideration, in certain circumstances he could deny those requests without obtaining the management's approval. But in September 2018, Rickenbach told Copot that he needed to get management's approval before denying any request for reconsideration. Two other employees in the claims department had not heard of that policy; those employees told Copot that they continued to deny certain requests of reconsideration without management's approval.

Copot also raises an issue concerning Stewart Title's work-from-home policy. In the autumn of 2018, Stewart Title permitted two female claims counsel to work from home at least once a week. Copot alleges that Stewart Title did not allow male claims counsel to work from home. He asked Rickenbach if he could work from home at least once a week, and she denied his request without giving a reason.

Things appeared to come to a head in October 2018, when Copot met with Tonya Moseley, who worked as his legal assistant and as Rickenbach and Sharpe's administrative assistant. Moseley told Copot that McBee, Rickenbach, and Sharpe had agreed to closely scrutinize his attendance, productivity, and work performance in retaliation for his refusal to provide documentation for his sick leave. Moseley said theyhad instructed a colleague to document the times of Copot's arrival and departure from work and the length of any breaks he took.

On October 1, 2018, Copot sent an e-mail to a member of Stewart Title's human resources (HR) department asking to talk with her. They were unable to speak right away, but they chatted on October 16, 2018, and later that day Copot followed up by sending an e-mail in which he summarized the conversation. In the e-mail Copot alleged that Stewart Title engaged in sex discrimination and had an unlawful sick leave policy, and he asked Stewart Title to approve the sick leave he had taken for his surgery.¹ Copot called the same HR worker again on October 23, 2018 and left a voicemail asking for a response to his e-mail and stating he needed to request a week-long absence in November to care for his father. Copot stated in the voicemail that if Stewart Title did not approve that request and his earlier sick leave, he would file complaints with the Illinois Department of Labor regarding Stewart Title's sick leave policy and with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for gender discrimination.

On October 30, 2018, McBee and a senior HR director at Stewart Title approached Copot's office, accompanied by two armed security guards. Copot has alleged that "[o]ne security guard stood at the entrance and exit to the office suite while the other entered [Copot's] office [and] stood in the path of [his] office door closing and blocking it." Id. ¶ 150. They "prevented" Copot's "movement within the office suite" and stopped him "from accessing the restroom." Id. McBee told Copot that StewartTitle had decided to terminate his employment "due to poor job performance for not following claims handling procedures." Id. ¶ 151. McBee left the office and closed the door. The HR director told Copot to clear out his belongings, and the security guards escorted him out of the building.

In November 2018, Copot filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) and a complaint alleging violations of the Illinois Employee Sick Leave Act with the Illinois Department of Labor. A couple of weeks later, IDES informed Copot that Stewart Title had contested his eligibility for unemployment benefits.

On February 8, 2019, Copot cross-filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR). He checked the boxes for retaliation and discrimination based on sex. In the space to describe his complaint he stated:

During my employment [with Stewart Title], I was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment than female employees, including, but not limited to, increased scrutiny and application of [Stewart Title's] sick leave policy. I complained and was subsequently discharged. I believe I have been discriminated against because of my sex, male, and in retaliation for engaging in protected activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

Defs.' Mem., Ex. A (dkt. no. 17-1) at 2.²

On August 27, 2019, the EEOC dismissed Copot's charge and gave him notice of his right to sue. Copot timely filed this lawsuit on October 23, 2019. At the time, IDHR had not issued a finding on his charge filed with that agency.

In his complaint, Copot asserts three violations of Title VII. Specifically, he alleges disparate treatment on account of sex (count 1), disparate impact based on sex (count 2), and retaliation (count 3). He also has alleged violations of the IHRA: sex discrimination (count 4), disparate treatment (count 5), disparate impact (count 6), and retaliation (count 7). And he has alleged several claims under Illinois common law: civil conspiracy (count 8), false imprisonment (count 9), defamation (count 10), and respondeat superior (count 11). The defendants have moved the dismiss all of Copot's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Discussion

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must allege enough facts "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In considering such a motion, a court "accept[s] well-pleaded facts as true and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in the [plaintiff's] favor." Shipley v. Chi. Bd. of Election Comm'rs, 947 F.3d 1056, 1060-61 (7th Cir. 2020). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). These pleading standards typically "are considerably relaxed" for pro se plaintiffs, Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1027 (7th Cir. 2013), but "pro se litigants who are attorneys are not entitled to the flexible treatment granted other pro se litigants." Cole v. Comm'r, 637 F.3d 767, 773 (7th Cir. 2011).

As an initial matter, the defendants argue that Copot's Title VII and IHRA claims against McBee must be dismissed. Copot says in his response to defendants' motionthat he asserts only a defamation claim against McBee, but that is not...