James v. Get Fresh Produce, Inc.

RONALD E. JAMES, Plaintiff, v. GET FRESH PRODUCE, INC., PETER SIKORSKI, and MELISSA ANZONA, Defendants.

No. 18 C 4788

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

November 28, 2018

Hon. Virginia M. Kendall

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Ronald James brings this suit alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981") against his current employer Defendant Get Fresh Produce, Inc. ("Get Fresh") and two Get Fresh employees—Defendants Peter Sikorski and Melissa Anzona. Specifically, this case revolves around the Defendants' failure to allow James to take vacation from work on two days of significance to him as a practicing Jehovah's Witness. As such, James alleges that Defendants failed to accommodate his practices and otherwise discriminated, harassed, and retaliated against him. See (Dkt. 1). Currently before the Court is Get Fresh's Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. 10). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part. To the extent that James can cure the deficiencies explained below, he may file an amended complaint by December 20, 2018.

BACKGROUND

James filed a 21-page Complaint and an 18-page Response Brief, both of which contain handwritten allegations with documents randomly interspersed throughout, sometimes without any apparent organization, making James's allegations and arguments difficult to comprehend. See (Dkts. 1, 15). Construing James's pro se allegations liberally, see Parker v. Four Seasons Hotels, Ltd., 845 F.3d 807, 811 (7th Cir. 2017), and incorporating any facts consistent with the allegations in the Complaint as set forth in his response brief, Smith v. Dart, 803 F.3d 304, 311 (7th Cir. 2015) ("[F]acts alleged by a plaintiff in a brief in opposition to a motion to dismiss may be considered when evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint so long as they are consistent of the allegations in the complaint.") (quotation and citation omitted), the Court understands the relevant factual allegations to be as follows.

James began working at Get Fresh in 2007, and he is presently employed by the company as a Delivery Driver, delivering produce to restaurants and schools in Chicago. (Dkt. 1) at 12. Drivers are required to work six days per week; James has Sundays off. Id. at 16; (Dkt. 15) at 8. James is a Jehovah's Witness. He is also Black. As a Jehovah's Witness, every year James participates in religious meetings and conventions. He also participates in door to door ministry on a regular basis. (Dkt. 1) at 12. As relevant to this case, James is a union employee and Delivery Driver vacation requests are governed by a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"),¹ under which drivers were permitted to request "two (2) consecutive weeks of vacation and five (5) individually scheduled days" prior to December 31 for the following year. Id. at 9.

On November 7, 2017, James filled out a vacation request form for 2018; he returned the form on November 8 to Anzona, a supervisor. Id. at 12-13; (Dkt. 15) at 6. He requested the following vacation days: July 2, 3, 6, 7; August 4, 11, 17, 25, 31; March 31; and September 1, 28, 29—in that order. (Dkt. 15) at 6-7. James received a response on November 15, 2017, which he alleges was from Anzona, approving his request for vacation on July 2-5 as well as on August 4, 11, 17, 25, and 31. See (Dkt. 1) at 9, 13. With regard to March 31, however, which James notesis the "death of Christ" for Jehovah's Witnesses, he was told that he needed to "wait until the end of the bid process to request this date." If it was still available, James would be able to utilize a vacation day for this date. Id. at 9. The response notes that after December 31, requests for the year are on a first come, first serve basis.

James unsuccessfully attempted to get his union involved at this time. Id. at 14. So on his own, James attended a handful of meetings with various supervisors and managers (including Anzona and Sikorski, the Chief Financial Officer) regarding his requested vacation days; James felt intimidated at these meetings. (Dkt. 15) at 2. First, James alleges to have had a meeting with supervisors "Kevin and Megan" regarding the denial of the March 31 vacation day. (Dkt. 1) at 14. James alleges that Megan instructed him to "take another day off," to which he allegedly responded "its [sic] the death of Christ he died on that day" but "she did not care." Id.; see also (Dkt. 15) at 1. James attended "more meetings" but nothing changed. (Dkt. 1) at 15.

Presumably in the midst of the meetings, James submitted a Charge of Discrimination to the EEOC on December 7, 2017. In the Charge, he stated in total:

I began my employment with Respondent on or about December 18, 2007. My current position is Delivery Driver. During my employment, I requested a religious accommodation and it was not provided. Subsequently, I am being subjected to harassment and different terms and conditions of employment, including, but not limited to, being denied when to take my vacation days and not being allowed to modify my work schedule in order to attend religious events.

I believe I have been discriminated against because of my religion, Jehovah's Witness, my race, Black, and in retaliation for engaging in protected activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

(Dkt. 1) at 8 (Charge of Discrimination). Then, James was asked to work on "Sunday Dec[ember] 24 2017 so everyone can be off Dec[ember] 25 2017." Id. at 15; see id. at 19 ("In December 2017, the driver were told to work Sunday so the night driver can be off for Christmas on Monday."). James viewed this incident as discriminatory, alleging Get Fresh allowed the "night driver cancelebrate the Birth of Christ. But [Defendants] will not let [James] celebrate March 31, 2018 for the Death of Christ." Id. at 19. Since he typically has Sundays off, so he wrote a letter explaining that he goes to meetings and ministry on Sunday mornings. Id. At some point, possibly related to this same incident, Sikorski asked James to "write a letter" explaining what he does "on Sunday his day off," to which he responded that he "[goes] door to door in the morning. Then [he goes] to the Kingdom Hall to worship." Id. at 17.

Later, on February 28, 2018, James submitted a "Time Off Request Form" seeking to take vacation on June 29 and 30 so that he could attend a "religious meeting." Id. at 10. According to the form, on March 16, 2018, Anzona approved the June 29 request but denied the request for June 30 because "[t]his date has already been closed." Id.

In a letter dated March 9, 2018, Sikorski encouraged James to request additional days off—now outside of the vacation day bidding process prescribed by the CBA. Id at 11; (Dkt. 15) at 10. In this letter, Sikorski informed James that March 31 was available: "We understand that March 31, 2018 is also an important day for you based on your religious practices. That day is still available and we urge you to act quickly to reserve it." (Dkt. 15) at 10. The letter also indicated that James's request for vacation on June 29 was approved; the request for a June 30 vacation day remained denied. Id. Apparently around this same time, Sikorksi also asked James to sign "a paper," which appears to have been a religious accommodation request form, to "try to intimidate him." Id. at 17-18. Sikorski did not ask other employees to sign accommodation forms; James did not sign the form. Id. at 17. Because of the lack of religious accommodation, James felt as if his religious beliefs were not respected. He also felt physically ill (he reported high blood pressure) and scared to go to work, because he feared that he would have to endure further intimidating meetings. Id. at 2.

In another letter, dated March 26, 2018, Sikorski wrote, "[a]s an additional accommodation to you, we will schedule March 31, 2018 as a day off for you" even though James failed to comply with the union-negotiated vacation-scheduling procedures. Id at 12. The letter contains the following handwritten note: "March 31, 2018 Get Fresh call me at 4:30 am tell me to come to work." Id. Also on March 26, Sikorski appears to have approved James's request for a vacation day on June 30, commenting on James's February 28 Time Off Request Form that "both days now approved. Slot opened up due to change by driver reserving June 30." (Dkt. 1) at 10.

On April 18, 2018, the EEOC issued James a Dismissal and Notice of Rights. Id. at 7. James timely filed a Complaint in federal court, using the six-page "Complaint of Employment Discrimination" provided by the Northern District of Illinois. James checked the boxes stating the Defendants discriminated against him on account of his "Race (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981)" and "Religion (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)." See id. at 4. As to how Defendants discriminated against him, James indicated that they "failed to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff's religion" and "failed to stop harassment"; James also handwrote that they "Retaliated; Accommodate Religious Days March 31 2018 and June 30 2018." Id. at 4-5.

Outside of these two specific time periods, March and June 2018, James generally complains that he was required to work on Saturdays and he claims that this is based on racial discrimination. James points to other Get Fresh employees—primarily Hispanic employees—who do not have to work on Saturdays and who at times are granted vacation days by Anzona without formally requesting them. Id. at 16; see also (Dkt. 15) at 4. Specifically, a Hispanic driver was allowed time off on a Friday, Saturday, and Sunday to play in a band. Another Hispanic driver has a schedule that allows him to attend school on the weekdays and work on the weekends. (Dkt.15) at 4. James also alleges that Caucasian and Hispanic drivers get...