United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
T. MOODY, JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [*]
matter is before the court on defendants' motion to
dismiss (DE # 21) count IV of plaintiff's amended
complaint (DE # 19) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). The well-known legal standard applicable
is that, with the complaint's factual allegations
accepted as true, dismissal for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate when those facts are
not enough to make a right to relief plausible, meaning more
than speculative. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 556 (2007); Vinson v. Vermilion Cty., Illinois,
776 F.3d 924, 928 (7th Cir. 2015). To avoid dismissal, the
well-pleaded factual content must allow the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
count IV of her amended complaint plaintiff Heather Kill
(“Kill”) pleads termination of her employment
services contract with defendant Community HealthNet, Inc.
(“CHNI”) on the basis of her race, and
retaliation, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
Specifically, Kill's allegations include the following
pertinent paragraphs, numbered as in her complaint:
4. . . . Defendant, Dr. Janet Seabrook . . . owns and/or
operates CHNI, [and] was a primary decision-maker concerning
Kill . . ..
. . . .
7. Kill is a White/Caucasian female.
8. CHNI's Chief Executive Officer/Director Dr. Janet
Seabrook is a black/African-American female.
. . . .
74. Upon information and belief, at times relevant to
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, around seventy-five
percent (75%) of the providers (mid-level and
physician-level) employed at CHNI, including Dr. Seabrook,
are not White/Caucasian.
75. Around April 30, 2015, Kill complained to CHNI about less
favorable treatment, harassment and hostile work environment
that Kill suffered at CHNI.
. . . .
79. Defendants retaliated against Kill by terminating
Kill's employment [contract].
. . . .
83. Defendants purposely interfered with performance of
Kill's employment contract and terminated Kill's
contract thereby denying Kill the benefits, privileges,
terms, and conditions of her Provider Employment Agreement,
all of ...