Hamilton-Hayyim v. Jackson

CHANGE HAMILTON-HAYYIM Plaintiff,

v. JESSE L. JACKSON, JR., RICHARD BRYANT,THERESA CALDWELL, DEBORAH POSEY, Defendants.

No. 12-cv-06392

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

Date: July 31, 2013

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES F. HOLDERMAN, District Judge:

On March 15, 2013, plaintiff Change Hamilton-Hayyim ("Hamilton-Hayyim") filed with this court a Second Amended Complaint alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. (Dkt. No. 24 ("2d Am. Compl.").) The Second Amended Complaint alleges that former Congressman Jessie L. Jackson, Jr. ("Jackson") and members of his staff—Richard Bryant ("Bryant"), Theresa Caldwell ("Caldwell"), and Deborah Posey ("Posey")—discriminated against Hamilton-Hayyim in her employment as Jackson's Director of Community Outreach on the basis of disability, race, and religion. (Id. at 2-3.) Specifically, Hamilton-Hayyim alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981"). (Id. at 3.) Hamilton-Hayyim also asserts claims against Jackson, Bryant, Caldwell, and Posey (collectively "Defendants") under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 ("FMLA"), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation Act of2002 ("No FEAR Act"), and for violations of her constitutional rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1976) ("Bivens Action"). (Id. at 3.)

Pending before this court is Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Dkt. No. 28 ("Defs.' Mot.").) Defendants have filed a "Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss," (Dkt. No. 29 ("Defs.' Mem.")), to which Hamilton-Hayyim filed three separate responses, (Dkt. No. 34 ("Pls.' Initial Resp. to Defs.' Mot.")); (Dkt. No. 35 ("Pls.' Initial Resp. to Defs.' Mem.")); and (Dkt. No. 38 ("Pls.' [Second] Initial Resp. to Defs.' Mot.")). Defendants have filed a single reply to Hamilton-Hayyim's responses. (Dkt. No. 40 ("Defs.' Reply").) For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. Hamilton-Hayyim's claims falling under the Congressional Accountability Act—her ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Title VII, and FMLA claims—are dismissed without prejudice. Hamilton-Hayyim's claims falling under Section 1981, the No FEAR Act, HIPAA, and Bivens are dismissed with prejudice. Hamilton-Hayyim is given leave to file a Third Amended Complaint consistent with this opinion and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on or before 8/15/13 for the purposes of re-alleging her claims falling under the Congressional Accountability Act and addressing the deficiencies noted in sections 1.B and 1.C of the court's analysis, should she desire to do so.

BACKGROUND

Hamilton-Hayyim's Second Amended Complaint includes attached copies of her Original Complaint and First Amended Complaint. (See 2d Am. Compl. at 13-47.) Hamilton-Hayyim also explicitly incorporates the facts from these prior complaints by reference. (Id. at 12("Plaintiff is filing this Second Amended Complaint . . . to ensure clarity regarding the repetition of all allegations from the initial Complaint, in addition to the First Amended Complaint as correct and true.").) The Second Amended Complaint is therefore read as encompassing all allegations from each prior complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). In addition, Hamilton-Hayyim attached paperwork from the United States Congress Office of Compliance to her Second Amended Complaint. (See 2d Am. Compl. at 19-22.) A "copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is part of the pleading for all purposes," Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), therefore, the court may consider these additional documents when evaluating Defendants' motion to dismiss. Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547, 556 (7th Cir. 2012). The court accepts as true all well-pleaded factual allegations contained in Hamilton-Hayyim's Second Amended Complaint and attached exhibits at this stage of the litigation. McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 694 F.3d 873, 879 (7th Cir. 2012).

Hamilton-Hayyim served as the Director of Community Outreach for Jackson until her termination effective October 31, 2012. (2d Am. Compl. at 5, 9.) The first instance of discrimination Hamilton-Hayyim alleges was a September 2007 email to Hamilton-Hayyim from Bryant, then Jackson's District Director, in which he communicated to Hamilton-Hayyim "that he did not approve of her faith observance." (Id. at 3, 27). Specifically, Hamilton-Hayyim had advised Bryant that she "would be away observing Yom Kippur." (Id. at 27.) Bryant responded by noting that Hamilton-Hayyim's co-worker, Mimi, "does not take a day away from the office because Yom Kippur is a minor Jewish holiday." (Id.) Hamilton-Hayyim further alleges that in September 2010, Bryant again "made Plaintiff aware, via email and phone," that he disapproved of Hamilton-Hayyim's faith observance. (Id. at 4.) That same month, Caldwell, Jackson's Chief of Staff at the time, denied Hamilton-Hayyim leave to observe the Jewish festival of Sukkotbecause Hamilton-Hayyim had not completed the necessary paperwork. (Id. at 4, 29.) Caldwell also required Hamilton-Hayyim to "work some 'Sunday church stop' events to balance out time for her faith observance," but did not give Hamilton-Hayyim "compensatory time" for this work. (Id. at 4, 29.) At a December 2010 meeting with Bryant and Caldwell, where Bryant was expected to apologize to Hamilton-Hayyim, Bryant instead "intimidat[ed] and ma[de] false claims against the Plaintiff." (Id. at 4.) In response to Bryant's comments and Jackson's office's "ineffective response" to them, Hamilton-Hayyim filed a complaint with the United States Congress Office of Compliance in January 2011. (Id. at 4-5, 27.)

As a result of this complaint, Hamilton-Hayyim alleges that she experienced "open, hostile harassment and retaliation . . . within [Jackson's] office." (Id. at 27.) Hamilton-Hayyim alleges that due to the complaint she filed with the Office of Compliance, she did not receive a "promotion" that Jackson had previously offered her in November 2010. (Id. at 4.) Generally, Hamilton-Hayyim alleges that Bryant "began limiting [her] participation as . . . Director of Community Outreach." (Id. at 5.) In particular, Hamilton-Hayyim was not allowed to conduct "outreach to the Jewish community" as she had been prior to her complaint. (Id. at 5, 30.) She further alleges Bryant and Posey¹ "began an unethical pattern of non-responsiveness to Plaintiff[']s workflow request[s]" which "affect[ed] Plaintiff[']s ability to respond to community concerns." (Id. at 6.) Additionally, in May 2011, Hamilton-Hayyim alleges that Bryant began to "intentionally" miscalculate her work hours, "resulting in erroneous compensation." (Id. at 5.)

Hamilton-Hayyim also alleges a series of actions taken in regards to her previously-approved medical leave. Though not explicitly stated in her complaint, Hamilton-Hayyim appears to have begun her medical leave in November 2010, when she received a copy ofJackson's "FML policy" for his office. (Id. at 4.) In February 2011, Jackson emailed his staff announcing a retroactive change to the Family and Medical Leave Act policy which "adversely affect[ed]" Hamilton-Hayyim, who was still on leave at that time.² (Id. at 5.) In April 2011, Bryant "threatened to rescind" Hamilton-Hayyim's medical leave unless she "overrode her medical provider[']s refusal to disclose her diagnosis under HIPPA [sic] protections." (Id. at 5.) In October 2011, Bryant reduced her compensation by 50% based on the recommendation of Hamilton-Hayyim's doctor that Hamilton-Hayyim take "intermittent" leave "to adjust to medications and make regularly scheduled appointments without interfering with office scheduling." (Id. at 7, 36.) When Hamilton-Hayyim discussed this reduction in salary with Jackson in January 2012, Jackson stated he knew about the reduction and that, due to Hamilton-Hayyim's "disability and treatments," he was "suffering the worst Congress of his career." (Id. at 7.) Hamilton-Hayyim alleges that Bryant agreed to "correct" her compensation at a March 2012 meeting; however, in fact, "he had no intention[]" of doing so and to date there has been no correction in her compensation. (Id. at 39-40.)

Hamilton-Hayyim also alleges in this case that she was a victim of racial discrimination. In support of this claim, Hamilton-Hayyim alleges that, in September 2011, Jackson explained to her that a co-worker's comments regarding "losing her black card for LIFE!" were a reference "to her social status with black people, not an American Express black card." (Id. at 6-7, 36.) When Hamilton-Hayyim advised Jackson that she was "insulted by [this] ideology," she alleges that there was "no follow up." (Id. at 36.)

In addition to what is set forth above, Hamilton-Hayyim pleads a series of other incidents in her 47-page Second Amended Complaint that she characterizes as harassing, discriminatory,intimidating, or retaliatory. These events culminated in an e-mail from Bryant on October 24, 2012, advising Hamilton-Hayyim that her employment with Jackson's office was being terminated effective October 31, 2012. (Id. at 9.) The reason supplied in Bryant's email was "engag[ing] in conduct that has been detrimental" to Jackson, "including working to undermine him by assisting an independent congressional candidate who is on the ballot and running against him during the 2012 general election campaign." (Id. at 9.) Prior to this civil action, Hamilton-Hayyim filed at least three complaints with the Office of Compliance. Her initial complaint, filed in January...