Motion to Dismiss Employee's National Origin Discrimination Claim Denied When Employee Has Well-Plead Facts

Radek v. Target Corp. - United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Facts:  Esmeralda Radek ("Radek") worked at a Target store in Illinois beginning in early 2012.  Prior to being hired, she passed a background check and nothing was mentioned in regard to issues with her social security number.  About a year after she worked for Target, Radek received a promotion and a "great" performance review.  In early 2014, the Target store manager at the location in which Radek work received a letter claiming that Radek was using a fraudulent social security number and stealing items from the store and selling them on eBay.

About a week after receipt of the letter, a Target human resources representative accused Radek of using a fraudulent social security number.  Radek was asked to verify her social security number and Radek explained why there might be an issue (as she had been born in Texas and moved to Illinois, thus the issuing state might not be correct).  However, the next day, Radek was terminated for using a fraudulent social security number.  Radek alleged that her store had previously targeted Hispanic employees and accused them of using fraudulent social security numbers.  (Although several of these employees were terminated, they were apparently re-hired after it was confirmed their social security numbers were valid.)

After filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and receiving her right to sue letter, Radek brought her suit against Target for national origin discrimination under Title VII and national origin and race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981.  Target subsequently filed a motion to dismiss.

Holding:  As readers might know, the federal rules provide that when a court considers a motion to dismiss, all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and courts draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.

Radek's National Origin Claim

To prevail upon a Title VII discrimination claim, Radek must have plead that Target had implemented a specific adverse employment action against her on the basis of her protected class.  Target argued that the discrimination claim should be dismissed as Radek was not terminated based upon her race or national origin but instead because she apparently did not have a valid social security number.  In this case, the Court agreed with Target and held that Title VII does not forbid discrimination based upon actual citizenship or immigration status.  However, Radek plead that Target had a pattern of making "false allegations" against Hispanic employees, which included accusing them of using fraudulent social security numbers.  In this instance, Target never complained about Radek's social security number (and even withheld portions of her pay for social security taxes).  The Court held that the facts, as plead by Radek, were sufficient to allow her allegation that she was targeted and terminated because she was Hispanic, to proceed.

Radek's 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 Claim

Turning to Radek's other claim, the Court noted that Target had a pattern of making "false allegations" against Hispanic employees including allegations that these employees used fraudulent social security numbers (as a pretext for terminating their employment).  Based upon the facts, as plead in Radek's petition, the Court held that Target's motion to dismiss as to this portion of the complaint was denied.

Judgment:  The Court allowed a majority of Radek's national origin claim to proceed ahead on the grounds that as plead, she had raised sufficient facts to establish that she had been targeted and terminated by her employer because she was Hispanic, not because of her alleged use of a fraudulent social security number.

The Takeaway:  I always like to caution readers that the Court in this case did not rule on the merits of Radek's claims nor the defenses raised by Target at this point.  Instead, this was a matter of the Court applying the federal rules and determining if Radek had plead, at a minimum, sufficient facts to support her claims against Target.  Without getting into the merits of the claims or defenses or even considering the veracity of anything plead thus far, I think the Court came to the correct conclusion that a majority of Radek's claim was allowed to proceed ahead.  That is the benefit for the plaintiff in these instances:  With a court being required to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff when considering a motion to dismiss, so long as the plaintiff has properly plead sufficient facts to support its allegations, it is likely that a motion to dismiss will not succeed.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Lee

Date:  December 19, 2017

Opinion:  http://hr.cch.com/eld/RadekTarget121917.pdf