By: Derek Hawkins//October 29, 2015//
Civil
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Officials: BAUER and SYKES, Circuit Judges, and REAGAN, Chief District Court Judge
Retaliatory Termination
No. 12-2217 Fozyia Huri v. Office Chief Judge Cook County
Appellant Title VII case dismissed in error
“The pleading standards in Title VII cases are, of course, different from the evidentiary burden a plaintiff must subsequently meet. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 (2002). It may be that Huri, once discovery has run its course, cannot produce evidence to survive summary judgment. But that question can safely be postponed to another day. Defendants have fair notice of Huri’s claims and the grounds upon which those claims rest, and the details in her Second Amended Complaint present a story that “holds together.” Swanson, 614 F.3d at 404. Dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint was therefore error”
“Here, Huri’s § 1983 hostile work environment claims are straightforward theories of arbitrary treatment based on her religion and nationality. In other words, we analyze both § 1983 claims under the Equal Protection Clause. It is a short step from there to concluding Huri’s § 1983 claims should be resurrected on remand. When a plaintiff uses § 1983 as a parallel remedy to a Title VII harassment claim, the prima facie elements to establish liability are the same under both statutes. Rivera v. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewers Auth., 331 F.3d 183, 192 (1st Cir. 2003) (collecting cases). Stating a hostile work environment claim under Title VII therefore establishes a vi‐ able claim to § 1983 relief. Id. As discussed above, Huri stated viable Title VII hostile work environment claims. Her § 1983 claims against McCallum, Filishio, and Lawless sur‐ vive for the same reasons.”
Reversed and Remanded