Graham v. St. John's United Methodist Church et al, No. 3:2012cv00297 - Document 35 (S.D. Ill. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER denying 13 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Michael J. Reagan on 9/24/12. (caa)

Download PDF
Graham v. St. John's United Methodist Church et al Doc. 35 I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF I LLI NOI S RI CHARD A. GRAHAM, ) ) Plaint iff, ) ) ) v. ) ST. JOHN’S UNI TED METHODI ST ) CHURCH, THE I LLI NOI S GREAT ) RI VERS CONFERENCE OF THE ) UNI TED METHODI ST CHURCH and ) REVEREND SHERYL PALMER, in her ) individual capacit y, ) ) Defendant s. ) Case No. 12- cv- 0297- MJR MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REAGAN, Dist r ict Judge: I. Fact ual and Procedural Background I n April 2012, Richard Graham filed an 8- count com plaint against St . John’s Unit ed Met hodist Church, The I llinois Great Rivers Conference of t he Unit ed Met hodist Church and Reverend Sheryl Palm er. Graham alleges violat ions of t he Am ericans wit h Disabilit ies Act of 1990 ( " ADA" ) , 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; t he Fair Labor St andards Act ( " FLSA" ) , 29 U.S.C. § 203( d) ; t he I llinois Wage and Collect ion Act ( " I WPCA" ) , 820 I LCS 115/ et seq.; as well as com m on law act ions for int ent ional inflict ion of em ot ional dist ress and negligent super vision. The com plaint alleges t he following fact s. I n 1996, Graham was t he v ict im of a serious beat ing in which he suffered m ult iple concussions, m ult iple fract ures including part s of his face, and severe cont usions over a 1 Dockets.Justia.com subst ant ial port ion of his body. Graham ’s head inj uries result ed in a perm anent disabilit y of his cognit ive processes leaving him wit h difficult y art iculat ing sit uat ions. his t hought s and com prehending, especially in st ressful I n August 2008, Graham was hired as a part - t im e cust odian at St . John’s and was t old t hat he would work 25 hours a week. A short t im e aft er Graham began his em ploym ent , t he ot her part - t im e cust odian left , and Graham assum ed all cust odial dut ies at t he church. He perform ed his dut ies in a sat isfact ory m anner. Palm er t old Graham t hat regardless of t he ext ra work load and t he num ber of hours worked, he would only be paid for 25 hours a week. As a result of his head inj uries, Graham is a very acquiescent individual, especially wit h aut horit y figures like Palm er. Palm er t ook advant age of Graham ’s disabilit y and required him t o w ork seven days a week, averaging 35 to 40 hours, while approxim at ely 25 hours on his t im esheet . only allowing him to put Palm er called Graham “ st upid” and “ ret ard” and allowed ot her m em bers t o call him t hese nam es as well. She yelled at Graham in front of ot hers in order t o em barrass him . About June 6, 2011, t he Holsm ans, who were m em bers of St . John’s and advocat es for Graham ’s em ploym ent , asked The I llinois Great Rivers Conference of t he Unit ed Met hodist Church ( “ I GRC” ) t o invest igat e Palm er’s m ist reat m ent of Graham . The Holsm ans also assist ed Graham in 2 filing a com plaint wit h t he I llinois Depar t m ent of Labor ( “ I DOL” ) . The I DOL’s invest igat ion found 22 violat ions of t he One Day Rest in Seven Act . Graham repeat edly asked Palm er and St . John’s for accom m odat ion for his m ent al challenges, but t hey refused t o accom m odat e him . I n July 2011, t he Holsm ans t old Palm er and St . John’s t hat Graham was ill and scheduled for surgery. On August 15, 2011, Palm er unilat erally scheduled Graham t o ret urn t o work. I n a let t er dat ed August 17, 2011, Palm er t old Graham t hat if he did not not ify St . John's of his healt h st at us by August 23, 2011, St . John's would " assum e [ he] resigned his posit ion." On or about August 23, 2011, Graham was t erm inat ed. The I GRC m oves t o dism iss Count 8 of Graham ’s com plaint ( negligent supervision by t he I GRC) , assert ing t hat as Graham ’s em ployer, it is subj ect t o t he I llinois Workers’ Com pensat ion Act ( “ I WCA” ) and has no liabilit y for an I llinois com m on law negligence claim , including negligent supervision and em ot ional dist ress ( Doc. 13) . II. Legal St andard The I GRC m oves for dism issal pursuant t o Rule 12( b) ( 6) of t he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs dism issal for failure t o st at e a claim . I n assessing a Rule 12( b) ( 6) m ot ion, t he Court m ust t ake as t rue all fact ual allegat ions and const rue in plaint iff’s favor inferences. all reasonable M a sse y v. M e r r ill Lynch & Co., I nc., 4 6 4 F.3 d 6 4 2 , 6 5 6 3 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 6 ) ; Alba ny Ba nk & Tr ust Co. v. Ex x on M obil Cor p., 3 1 0 F.3 d 9 6 9 , 9 7 1 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A com plaint should be dism issed only “ if t here is no set of fact s, even hypot hesized, t hat could ent it le a plaint iff t o relief.” F.3 d a t 6 5 6 . M a sse y, 4 6 4 As t he Unit ed St at es Court of Appeals for t he Sevent h Circuit explained: “ We const rue t he com plaint in t he light m ost favorable t o t he plaint iff, t aking as t rue all wellpleaded fact ual allegat ions and m aking all possible inferences from t hose allegat ions in his or her favor.” Barnes v. Briley, 420 F.3d 673, 677 ( 7t h Cir. 2005) .... Dism issal is proper “ only if it ‘appears beyond doubt t hat t he plaint iff can pr ove no set of fact s in support of his claim w hich would ent it le him t o relief.’” I d. M cCr e a dy v. EBa y, I nc., 4 5 3 F.3 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 7 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 6 ) . I ndeed, t he law of t his Circuit recognizes t hat , generally, “ a part y need not plead m uch t o survive a m ot ion t o dism iss” - not specific fact s, not legal t heories, and not anyt hing in ant icipat ion of a possible defense. M a sse y, 4 6 4 F.3 d a t 6 5 0 ( cit ing Xe ch e m , I nc. v. Br ist ol- M ye r s Squibb Co., 3 7 2 F.3 d 8 9 9 , 9 0 1 - 0 2 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 4 ) ) . The gist of t his Court ’s inquiry is “ whet her t he com plaint gives t he defendant fair not ice of what t he suit is about and t he grounds on which it rest s.” M ose ly v. Bd. of Educ. of Cit y of Chica go, 4 3 4 F.3 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 3 ( 7 t h Cir . 2 0 0 6 ) . Se e a lso Sw ie r k ie w icz v. Sor e m a N .A., 4 534 U.S. 506, 508 ( 2002) ( com pla int s ne e d not a lle ge fa ct s; t he y ne e d only pr e se nt a cla im for r e lie f) . III. Discussion The I WCA provides t hat an em ployee inj ured while engaged in t he line of his dut y has no privat e right of act ion against his em ployer. 8 2 0 I LCS 3 0 5 / 5 ( a ) . The I WCA also provides t hat an em ployee has a privat e right of act ion against “ som e person ot her t han his em ployer” if t he inj ury for which com pensat ion is payable was caused under circum st ances creat ing a legal liabilit y for t hat person. 8 2 0 I LCS 3 0 5 / 5 ( b) . I n t he I GRC’s Answer t o Count s 5 and 6, it repeat edly denies t hat it is Graham ’s em ployer. For exam ple, in it s answer t o paragraph 102, t he I GRC st at es, “ Defendant I GRC denies t hat Defendant I GRC is an em ployer of Plaint iff.” The I GRC uses t he sam e or sim ilar language in ¶ ¶ 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 and 120. The I GRC denies t hat it “ ever em ployed Plaint iff.” St at ed sim ply, t he I GRC cannot have it bot h ways. I t cannot deny t hat it em ployed Graham t o defend claim s brought under t he I WPCA and FLSA, yet assert t hat it em ployed Graham t o t ake advant age of t he bar t o em ployer liabilit y provided by t he I WCA. I n ot her words, t he I GRC cannot deny t hat it is an em ployer t o defend claim s of w illful violat ion of t he I WPCA and t he FLSA while seeking t o shelt er behind t he I WCA as an em ployer for which t he I WCA provides t he “ full m easure” of an em ployer’s responsibilit y. 5 The I GRC m ay be able t o m arshal evidence t o support a m ot ion for sum m ary j udgm ent t hat could be a defense against one of t hese claim s. I t will never reasonably be able t o est ablish t hat it is bot h Graham ’s em ployer and not his em ployer. I V. Conclusion For t he foregoing reasons, t he Court D EN I ES t he I GRC’s m ot ion t o dism iss Count 8 of Plaint iff’s Com plaint ( Doc. 13) . I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED Sept em ber 24, 2012 s/ Michael J. Reagan MI CHAEL J. REAGAN Unit ed St at es Dist r ict Judge 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.