Arriaga v. Dart

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

)

SELENE DANIELLE ARRIAGA,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

) No. 20 C 4498

v.

)

) Judge Virginia M. Kendall

THOMAS J. DART, Sheriff of Cook

)

County, Illinois; THE NORTHEAST

)

REGIONAL COMMUTER

RAILROAD CORPORATION d/b/a )

METRA; COOK COUNTY, )

ILLINOIS; MARIE RANGEL, )

JOSEPH PEREZ; PAUL RIGGIO;

)

DAVID CAMMACK; THEODORE

)

STAJURA; and TIMOTHY

O’DONNELL )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Selene Arriaga brings suit against Defendants Northeast Regional

Commuter Railroad Corporation (“Metra), Cook County, Illinois, and seven other

named Defendants, for disclosing her transgender identity during her tenure at the

Cook County Sheriff’s Police Academy and failing to protect her against ensuing

harassment and discrimination. Arriaga claims violations of her Fourteenth

Amendment substantive due process and equal protection rights under 42 U.S.C. §

1983 and violations under state law for invasion of privacy, negligence, the Illinois

Civil Rights Act, 740 ILCS 23//5(a), and indemnification. Before the Court are

Defendants’ respective motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. 15) (Dkt. 30). For the reasons that follow, Defendants’

motions are granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

The following factual allegations are taken from Arriaga’s Complaint (Dkt. 1)

and are assumed true for the purposes of this motion. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co. v.

Schumacher, 844 F.3d 670, 675 (7th Cir. 2016). Selene Arriaga is a transgender

individual who transitioned from male to female. (Id. at ¶ 17). Arriaga’s transition

required various medical treatments, including hormone therapy and gender

confirmation surgeries. (Id. at ¶¶ 18; 20). In the spring or summer of 2018, Arriaga

secured a job as a police officer at Defendant Metra and enrolled in the Cook County

Sheriff’s Police Academy (“Police Academy”). (Id. at ¶ 15). At the time, Arriaga was

still undergoing medical treatments related to her gender transition and was “living

in stealth,” or “living as a transitioned or transitioning person without disclosing such

fact publicly.” (Id. at ¶ 21).

At or near the time she entered the Police Academy, Defendants conducted an

investigation into Arriaga’s private medical information and disclosed her identity as

a transgender female. (Id. at ¶ 25). Defendants failed to take remedial action after

disclosing Arriaga’s private information. (Id. at ¶ 57). Defendants Marie Rangel,

David Cammack, Theodore Stajura, and Timothy O’Donnell hold various supervisory

roles at the Cook County Sheriff’s Office or the Police Academy (collectively, along

with Defendants Cook County and Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, the “Cook

County Defendants”). Defendants Joseph Perez and Paul Riggio are the Metra Police

Chief and Deputy Chief, respectively (collectively, along with Defendant Metra, the

“Metra Defendants”).

Prior to the start of the Police Academy, fellow academy recruits also disclosed

Arriaga’s transgender status to other recruits and a Metra police officer. (Id. at ¶¶

34; 37). Fellow recruits continued disclosing her transgender identity to one another

during the Police Academy session and distributed a picture of Arriaga as a male. (Id.

at ¶¶ 39-40). Arriaga suffered other forms of harassment such as name-calling and

gossip along with discrimination. (Id. at ¶¶ 41–44). Arriaga claims Defendants failed

to adequately supervise recruits and protect her from this harassing and

discriminatory behavior. (Id. at ¶¶ 25; 41–42; 74; 77).

At some point during her tenure at the Police Academy, Arriaga “reported the

Defendants’ offensive conduct,” but the Complaint does not state when or to whom.

(Id. at ¶ 45). Arriaga completed the Police Academy on August 27, 2018 and was

under the impression that disciplinary action had been taken for the conduct she

reported. (Id. at ¶¶ 16; 47).

In July 2020, Arriaga learned that her private medical information and

transgender identity had been “disclosed to a much larger group of persons and to a

much larger extent than she had ever been aware.” (Id. at ¶ 26). She also discovered

that Sheriff Dart concealed the extent of the disclosures and the fact that no one had

been disciplined at the Police Academy for the reported conduct. (Id. at ¶¶ 46 –47;

97).

On July 31, 2020, Arriaga filed the instant Complaint, claiming under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 that Defendants violated her 14th Amendment substantive due process

and equal protection rights by disclosing her private medical information--her

transgender status (Counts I and II) and failing to supervise recruits to protect her

from harassment and discrimination (Count III). Arriaga also brings claims under

state law for invasion of privacy (Count IV), negligence (Count V), violations of the

Illinois Civil Rights Act, 740 ILCS 23/5(a) (Count VI), and indemnification (Count

VII).

LEGAL STANDARD

When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court

must construe the complaint “in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, accept

well-pleaded facts as true, and draw all inferences in the non-moving party’s favor.”

Bell v. City of Chicago, 835 F.3d 736, 738 (7th Cir. 2016). The complaint must contain

a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The plaintiff need not plead “detailed factual

allegations,” but the short and plain statement must “give the defendant fair notice

of what . . . the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter that when “accepted as true . . . ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570)).

DISCUSSION

I. Section 1983 Claims (Counts I-III)

Arriaga’s § 1983 claims arise from Defendants disclosing her transgender

identity in violation of her substantive due process right to medical privacy (Count I)

and her equal protection rights (Count II), and failing to adequately supervise

recruits and protect her from harassment and discrimination in violation of her

substantive due process and equal protection rights (Count III). Counts I through III

are brought against all Defendants. Defendants argue these claims should be

dismissed on various grounds.

A. Personal Involvement

First, the individual Cook County Defendants (Rangel, Cammack, Stajura,

O’Donnell) and Metra Police Chief Perez argue that Arriaga inadequately alleges

their personal involvement in the constitutional misconduct at issue. A complaint

must give a defendant fair notice of the claim against him and the grounds upon

which it rests, including the specific act or conduct by the defendant that is

challenged. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Black v. Lane, 22 F.3d 1395, 1401 n. 8 (7th

Cir. 1994). Further, § 1983 claims must be premised on personal involvement, not

vicarious liability: “[A] plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant,

through the officials own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Iqbal, 556

U.S. at 676.

Beginning with Rangel and Cammack, Arriaga specifically alleges they

disclosed her transgender identity to others in 2018 1 and that the “[Cook County

Sheriff’s Office] Defendants allow[ed] rank-and-file recruits and other employees to

joke, taunt, and embarrass Plaintiff” about her transgender identity “without doing

anything to stop such behavior”. (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 25; 33; 41–42). These statements

sufficiently establish Rangel and Cammack’s personal involvement. As to Stajura and

O’Donnell, while the Complaint includes allegations that they allowed recruits to

harass Arriaga without taking action, they are not explicitly alleged to have

participated in the disclosures. (Id. at ¶¶ 25; 41–42). Similarly, while the Complaint

clearly references Perez’ participation in disclosing Arriaga’s private medical

information 2, there is no explicit allegation that he failed to adequately supervise

recruits and protect Arriaga. (Id. at ¶ 56). In both instances, Arriaga argues that

allegations that Defendants, collectively, disclosed her transgender identity and

failed to protect her against harassment and discrimination are sufficient to place

1 Defendants argue Rangel and Cammack merely repeated information conveyed to them by other

officials or recruits. There is no allegation, however, that academy recruits told any of the Cook

County Defendants about Arriaga’s transgender identity. The Complaint states the recruits

conveyed that information to other recruits and one Metra police officer. (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶34–39).

Further, while the Complaint states that in 2018 Defendant Riggio disclosed Arriaga’s transgender

identity to Rangel and other unnamed officials at the Police Academy, it also states that in 2018,

Rangel and Cammack independently disclosed Arriaga’s information to other Police Academy staff.

(Id. at ¶¶31; 33). These allegations do not support an inference that Rangel, Cammack, and the other

Cook County Defendants were merely repeating information conveyed by others.

2 The Complaint states “Metra’s Police Chief … disclos[ed] Plaintiff’s private medical information to

the CCSO Police Academy and repeatedly talk[ed] about it with CCSO Police Academy

representatives.” (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 56). Contrary to Perez’ assertion, the reference to Metra’s Police Chief

is sufficient to allege Perez’ personal involvement in the disclosures because the Complaint earlier

identifies Perez as Metra’s Police Chief. (Id. at ¶ 7).

Stajura, O’Donnell, and Perez on notice of the complained-of conduct and allege their

personal involvement. (Id. at ¶¶ 51; 74; 77).

Allegations “directed at multiple defendants can be adequate to plead personal

involvement” where they “put the defendants on notice of what exactly they might

have done to violate [Arriaga]’s rights … .” Rivera v. Lake Cty., 974 F. Supp. 2d 1179,

1194 (N.D. Ill. 2013); Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 582 (7th Cir. 2009). Here, the

collective allegation that “Defendants disclosed to others that Plaintiff is

transgender,” is enough to place Stajura and O’Donnell on notice of the concrete

action complained of-- disclosing Arriaga’s transgender status. (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 51). By

contrast, the allegations that “Defendants failed to protect Plaintiff from the

foregoing described sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and hostile work

environment” and “fail[ed] to supervise recruits and staff” are conclusory allegations

and formulaic recitations of a failure to protect and supervise claim. (Id. at ¶¶ 74; 77).

They do not place Perez on notice of the concrete actions or omissions upon which

Arriaga bases her claim against him. Count III, which is premised on a failure to

supervise recruits and protect Arriaga from harassment, is therefore dismissed as to

Perez.

B. Qualified Immunity

Next, the Cook County Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified

immunity on Arriaga’s § 1983 claims because no reasonable officer in their position

would have known that disclosing Arriaga’s transgender identity was

unconstitutional under the circumstances described in the Complaint. Qualified

immunity “protects government officials from civil liability when performing

discretionary functions so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established

statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 652 (7th Cir. 2001). To overcome a qualified

immunity defense, plaintiff’s “allegations [must] make out a deprivation of a

constitutional right,” and “the right at issue [must be] clearly established at the time

of the defendant's alleged misconduct.” Siliven v. Ind. Dep't of Child Servs., 635 F.3d

921, 925-26 (7th Cir. 2011).

Arriaga’s Complaint surmounts both hurdles. Unauthorized disclosure of

private medical information by the state without a significant government interest

violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Denius v. Dunlap, 209 F.3d

944, 956 (7th Cir. 2000). Arriaga plausibly alleges in her Complaint that (1) her

transgender identity was something she kept private, (2) Defendants disclosed this

information without her permission and without a significant state interest, and (3)

disclosure of that private information was tantamount to disclosing medical

information because anyone informed of her transgender identity would necessarily

know of the prior medical interventions and therapy required for her gender

transition. (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 18–25; 30). The right to medical privacy was also clearly

established in 2018. Denius, 209 F.3d at 956 (“[T]his Circuit has outlined a clearly

established ‘substantial’ right in the confidentiality of medical information that can

only be overcome by a sufficiently strong state interest.).

Defendants argue that while there may be a clearly established right to keep

private medical information from disclosure, Arriaga’s transgender status was public

information when they disclosed it to others, such that “no reasonable official would

have understood that additional disclosures of Plaintiff’s transgender status” would

violate her rights (Dkt.42 at 8). The Complaint alleges academy recruits disclosed

Arriaga’s transgender status to other recruits prior to the start of the Police Academy

and that Defendants disclosed the same information at or near the start of the Police

Academy (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 25; 34; 37). While the recruits’ disclosures seem to predate

those of Defendants, it is unclear when Arriaga’s transgender status became public

knowledge. Surely, the fact that a handful of recruits knew about Arriaga’s

transgender identity at the time Defendants disclosed it cannot shield Defendants,

who are state officials, from liability. As support, Defendants cite to Chasensky v.

Walker, in which the Seventh Circuit concluded that defendants’ public broadcast of

plaintiff’s bankruptcy filing did not violate plaintiff’s privacy rights because “all the

defendants allegedly did was publicize the already-published fact that Chasensky

had filed bankruptcy.” 740 F.3d 1088, 1096 (7th Cir. 2014). Unlike the bankruptcy

proceedings in Chasensky, however, Arriaga’s transgender identity was not a matter

of public record. The public disclosure of publicly available information is entirely

distinct from the public disclosure of private information that happens to be known

by a few. At this stage, factual ambiguities regarding the timing, manner, and scope

of Defendants’ disclosures—all relevant considerations to the qualified immunity

calculus— remain to be resolved, making a grant of qualified immunity premature.

See e.g., Reed v. Palmer, 906 F.3d 540, 548 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Because a qualified

immunity defense so closely depends on the facts of the case, a complaint is generally

not dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified immunity grounds.”) (internal

quotations omitted).

C. Statute of Limitations

The Cook County Defendants maintain that Arriaga’s § 1983 claims are time-

barred under the applicable statute of limitations. While Arriaga is not required to

anticipate and defeat affirmative defenses such as a statute of limitations in her

complaint, if the “complaint nonetheless sts out all of the elements of an affirmative

defense, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate.” Indep. Tr. Corp. v. Stewart

Info. Servs. Corp., 665 F.3d 930, 935 (7th Cir. 2012). A two-year statute of limitations

applies to § 1983 claims in Illinois, beginning from the date “the plaintiff knows or

should know that his or her constitutional rights have been violated.” Savory v.

Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted).

The parties dispute the date on which Arriaga’s claims accrued. Defendants

maintain that the date of accrual is May 2018, when Arriaga started at the Police

Academy because Arriaga alleges that she experienced harassment and

discrimination on account of her transgender identity “[f]rom the first day of the

CCSO’s Police Academy….” (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 44). As a preliminary matter, the Complaint

does not indicate that the Police Academy session began in May 2018—it merely

states that that program started in the spring/summer of 2018. (Id. at ¶ 15). Even if

the Court accepts that the Police Academy began in May 2018, this date cannot mark

the accrual of Arriaga’s § 1983 because while the harassing behavior may have placed

Arriaga on notice that her private information had been disclosed, the Complaint does

not indicate that she knew the identity of the disclosers at the time. See Goodhand v.

United States, 40 F.3d 209, 212 (7th Cir. 1994) (“Even if [plaintiff] knows that he has

been injured, if he does not know who or what inflicted the injury,” the claim cannot

said to have accrued.).

Arriaga argues that the date of accrual is July 2020 when she learned of the

fully extent of Defendants’ disclosures. But “[t]he statute of limitations starts to run

when the plaintiff discovers his injury and its cause even if the full extent or severity

of the injury is not yet known.” Devbrow v. Kalu, 705 F.3d 765, 768 (7th Cir. 2013)

(citing Goodhand, 40 F.3d at 212) (emphasis added). Arriaga also argues that because

Sheriff Dart “took affirmative actions to hide the full extent of the disclosures” and

concealed the lack of disciplinary action in response to her complaint, the rules of

fraudulent concealment and equitable estoppel apply to extend the statute of

limitations to five years from the date of concealment. (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 46; 97). But again,

that Arriaga did not know of the full extent of the disclosures or lack of remedial

action while at the Police Academy is irrelevant. Regardless of Dart’s actions, Arriaga

alleges she knew that Defendants disclosed her transgender identity and failed to

protect her from harassment at some point during her time at the Police Academy

because she “reported the Defendants’ offensive conduct” prior to leaving the

Academy. (Id. at ¶ 45). Based on these allegations, the latest the statute of limitations

could have started is August 27, 2018 when Arriaga left the Police Academy. Arriaga

filed the instant Complaint on July 20, 2020, well within the two-year statute of

limitations for § 1983 claims. Thus, Count I through III are not time-barred.

D. Monell Liability

Defendants Metra and Dart 3 contend Arriega fails to allege that a Metra or

Cook County policy was the moving force behind her claims under § 1983. To hold a

municipality liable under § 1983, “a plaintiff must show the existence of an official

policy or other governmental custom that not only causes but is the moving force

behind the deprivation of constitutional rights.” Teesdale v. City of Chicago, 690 F.3d

829, 833 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Monell v. Dept. of Soc.

Serv. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978)). “[U]nconstitutional policies or

customs take three forms: (1) an express policy that causes a constitutional

deprivation when enforced; (2) a widespread practice, that, although unauthorized,

is so permanent and well-settled that it constitutes a ‘custom or usage’ with the force

of law; or (3) an allegation that a person with final policymaking authority caused the

injury.” Chortek v. City of Milwaukee, 356 F.3d 740, 748 (7th Cir. 2004). Arriaga fails

to allege any facts indicating that an official policy, practice, or custom was

responsible for her injury. Instead, she claims that Metra Police Chief Perez and

Cook County Police Academy Director Rangel are final policymakers for Metra and

Cook County, respectively.

3 As Dart is sued in his official capacity as Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, Arriega’s claims against

him are treated as claims against Cook County, Illinois, and are, thus, subject to the requirements of

Monell v. Dept. of Soc. Serv. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Guzman v. Sheahan, 495 F.3d

852, 859 (7th Cir. 2007).

The Complaint is barren of allegations that Perez and Rangel took part in

creating policies at Metra and Cook County or had the authority to do so. To wit, the

words “policy” or “policymaker” are altogether absent from the Complaint. Arriaga

presents extrinsic evidence from Metra’s website, indicating that Perez makes

employment decisions and sets policies and procedures at Metra, but the Court may

not consider such evidence on a motion to dismiss. Hecker v. Deere & Co., 556 F.3d

575, 582-83 (7th Cir.2009). The website content is not attached to or referenced in the

Complaint and there is no indication that it is central to Arriaga’s claims. See id. 4

Arriaga also argues that Illinois’s Railroad Police Act, 610 ILCS 80/2, gives Metra’s

Police Chief the final authority regarding employment decisions. The Metra Police

Department was created under the Regional Transportation Act, 70 ILCS 3615/1.01

et. seq., however, and not the Railroad Police Act, so the latter’s applicability is

unclear.

As to Rangel, Arriaga seems to argue that her policymaking authority should

be inferred from her position as Director of the Police Academy. (Dkt. 38 at 4-5). Title

or position alone are insufficient to create a plausible inference that an individual is

a final policymaker. Arriaga must allege facts indicating that by virtue of her position

Rangel has the “authority to adopt rules for the conduct of government” which “is

final in the special sense that there is no higher authority.” Auriemma v. Rice, 957

4 Arriaga argues that she may present facts outside the pleading so long as they are consistent with

the complaint (Dkt. 21 at n. 2). This is true, however, only after “the plaintiff pleads sufficient factual

material to state a plausible claim… .” Reynolds v. CB Sports Bar, Inc., 623 F.3d 1143, 1147 (7th Cir.

2010). As the Complaint does not contain any allegations regarding Perez’ status as a final

policymaker, Arriaga may not introduce extrinsic evidence to support that fact. The Court further

notes that the website content indicates that Perez made decisions and policies, not that he is a final

policymaker.

F.2d 397, 401 (7th Cir. 1992); Gernetzke v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1, 274 F.3d

464, 469 (7th Cir. 2001). She fails to do so. The Complaint does not state a claim for

Monell liability premised on Perez and Rangel’s roles as final policymakers for Metra

and Cook County. Counts I through III are thus dismissed as to Defendants Metra

and Dart.

E. Discriminatory Intent—Counts II and III

The Cook County Defendants argue that Arriaga’s equal protection claims

(Counts II and III) must be dismissed because Arriaga does not allege Defendants

had discriminatory intent. To state a claim for violation of the Equal Protection

Clause, Arriaga must allege facts demonstrating that “the defendants' actions had a

discriminatory effect and were motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” Chavez v.

Illinois State Police, 251 F.3d 612, 635–36 (7th Cir. 2001). Arriaga alleges

“Defendants conduct was motivated at least in party by discriminatory animus

towards transgender persons and Plaintiff’s protected status, because they

considered Plaintiff unique or a subject of interest, and because no one in Plaintiff’s

circumstances had ever attended the Police Academy … .” (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 54). That

Defendants thought of Arriaga as unique or interesting, however, does not plausibly

suggest that their actions had a discriminatory purpose. This is particularly true

because apart from stating conclusively that she experienced discrimination, Arriaga

fails to state what discriminatory actions Defendants took or what discriminatory

effect such actions had. (Id. at ¶¶44; 74). For these reasons, Count II is dismissed

entirely and the equal protection portion of Count III is also dismissed. 5

F. State-Created Danger Exception—Count III

Finally, Defendants maintain that Arriaga’s fails to state a due process

violation in Count III because the conduct alleged does not shock the conscience.

Arriaga claims that the shock the conscience standard does not apply to her due

process claims. The parties talk past one another. The “scope of substantive due

process is very limited.” Tun v. Whitticker, 398 F.3d 899, 902 (7th Cir. 2005). One

standard courts have developed to determine whether conduct is protected by the due

process clause is whether the government’s conduct “shocks the conscience.” Id. At

the same time, Courts have determined that the disclosure of private medical

information absent significant government interest violates the due process clause

without reference to the shocks-the conscience standard. Denius, 209 F.3d at 956;

Anderson v. Romero, 72 F.3d 518, 522 (7th Cir.1995).

Count III of Arriaga’s Complaint is premised, however, on the failure to protect

Arriaga from the harassing and discriminatory behavior of recruits and staff, rather

than on the disclosure of private medical information. Generally, a “State’s failure to

protect an individual against private violence [or injury] simply does not constitute a

violation of the Due Process Clause.” DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Soc.

Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 197 (1989). Exceptions to this general rule are (1) a special

relationship between the parties, such as when the state has custody of an individual

5 Although the Metra Defendants did not explicitly raise this argument, the Court elects to dismiss

the claims against all Defendants for the purposes of judicial economy.

(not invoked by Arriaga) and (2) the state-created danger doctrine. Estate of Her v.

Hoeppner, 939 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 2019). To impose on Defendants a duty to

protect Arriaga under the state-created danger exception she must demonstrate that:

(1) Defendants, “by [their] affirmative acts, created or increased a danger to the

plaintiff[s]”; (2) Defendants’ “failure to protect against the danger caused the

plaintiff[s’] injury; and (3) the conduct in question shocks the conscience.” Id.

(internal quotations omitted).

While the shock-the-conscience “standard lacks precise measurement,” “[o]nly

conduct falling toward the more culpable end of the spectrum shall be found to shock

the conscience.” King ex rel. King v. E. St. Louis Sch. Dist., 496 F.3d 812, 818-19 (7th

Cir. 2007). Mere negligence, or even gross negligence, is insufficient. McDowell v. Vill.

of Lansing, 763 F.3d 762, 766 (7th Cir. 2014). At the very least, deliberate

indifference, meaning “conscious disregard of known or obvious dangers,” is required.

Hoeppner, 939 F.3d at 876; Armstrong v. Squadrito, 152 F.3d 564, 577 (7th Cir. 1998).

Arriaga alleges that Defendants launched an investigation into her private

medical information and deliberately disclosed that information without legitimate

reason.6 (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 25; 30). The facts also lend the plausible inference that

Defendants knew of a likelihood that Arriaga would be subject to harassment because

she was the first transgender recruit to attend the Police Academy. (Id. at ¶ 54). Then,

in the face of known harassment, Arriaga alleges that Defendants failed to act to

protect her from that harassment. (Id. at ¶¶ 45; 74). The conduct alleged rises above

6 Contrary to the Cook County Defendants’ assertions, the Court finds that this conduct is sufficient

to establish an affirmative act that created a danger that Arriaga would be harassed.

negligence and is closer to deliberately indifference. While the shocks-the-conscience

standard is incredibly difficult to meet and Arriaga bears a significant burden moving

forward, the Court concludes that Arriaga has alleged enough to proceed with her

claim at this stage in the proceedings.

II. State Law Claims (Counts IV-VI)

In Counts IV through VI, Arriaga alleges several Illinois state law actions

premised on the same conduct underlying her § 1983 claims—the disclosure of her

transgender status and the failure to supervise recruits and protect her from

harassment and discrimination. Counts IV and V allege claims of invasion of privacy

and negligence against all individual Defendants, Count VI claims a violation of the

Illinois Civil Rights Act (“ICRA”), 740 ILCS 23/5(a), against Dart and Metra and

Count VII is an indemnification claim against Metra and Cook County.

Defendants argue that the state claims are time-barred. The statute of

limitations for privacy actions and negligence actions in Illinois is one year. 735 ILCS

5/13-201; 745 ILCS 10/8-101. The statute of limitations under the ICRA is two years.

740 ILCS 23/5(b). As established above, Arriaga’s claims accrued on August 27, 2018

and she filed the Complaint on July 31, 2020. Thus, Counts IV and V are time-barred

under the applicable statutes of limitation. 7

While Count VI survives a statute of limitations defense, Defendant Dart

argues that Arriaga fails to state a claim under the ICRA. The ICRA prohibits any

7 As Counts IV and V are dismissed on statute of limitations grounds, the Court declines to address

Defendants other arguments in support of the dismissal of these claims, including under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

unit of State, county, or local government from “exclud[ing] a person from

participation in, deny[ing] a person the benefits of, or subject[ing] a person to

discrimination under any program or activity on the grounds of that person's race,

color, national origin, or gender.” 740 ILCS 23/5(a)(1). Arriaga does not allege she was

excluded from participating in the Academy or denied a benefit of the Academy but

alleges multiple times that she was subject to discrimination at the Academy on

account of her transgender identity. (Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 44; 74; 111). These allegations are

conclusory, however, and Arriaga fails to allege the specific conduct by Defendants

she claims to have been discriminatory. For this reason, Count VI is dismissed as to

Defendant Dart and Metra. 8

Finally, because Arriaga’s federal claims under § 1983 survive against some of

the individual Defendants, Arriaga’s indemnification claim in Count VII survives.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motions to dismiss [15] [30] are granted

in part and denied in part. Counts I is dismissed as to Metra and Dart and sustained

as to the remaining Defendants. Count II is dismissed entirely. The equal protection

claim within Count III is dismissed as to all Defendants. The due process claim within

Count III is dismissed as to Metra, Dart, and Perez, but survives otherwise. Counts

IV, V, and VI are dismissed entirely. Count VII survives.

8 See supra note 6.

All claims are dismissed without prejudice. Arriaga may amend her Complaint within

21 days from the date of this order if she is able to do so.

Date: January 29, 2021

Lepeaenecm LL enact

Z Moy. . Virginia M. Kendall

nited States District Judge

19