Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DEBORAH JOHNSON,

Plaintiff

No. 25 CV 13794

v.

Judge Jeremy C. Daniel

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE

CITY OF CHICAGO,

Defendant

ORDER

The defendant’s motion to dismiss [12] is denied. The defendant shall answer the

complaint on or before June 15, 2026. The June 4, 2026, status hearing is stricken.

STATEMENT

This case is before the Court on Defendant Board of Education of the City of Chicago’s

motion to dismiss Plaintiff Deborah Johnson’s complaint. (R. 12.) The following

description of events is drawn from the complaint, (R. 1), and presumed true for the

purpose of resolving this motion. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

The plaintiff is a woman over the age of forty who was hired by the defendant in 1990

as a teacher. (R. 1 ¶¶ 8–10.)1 In June 2023, she was notified that her position was

changed to Multi-Tiered Student Support Coordinator due to budget cuts. (Id. ¶¶ 13,

16.) While she was not provided “guidance” regarding her new position, the plaintiff

“took the initiative” in undertaking her new role. (Id.) In August 2023, a new

assistant principal “lowered Plaintiff’s ratings.” (Id. ¶ 14.) In April 2024, the plaintiff

took leave. (Id. ¶ 15.) When she returned from leave in June 2024, she was informed

that her position was “closed.” (Id. ¶ 16.) She alleges this was due to her age, as she

later learned that she “had been replaced by someone younger (under 40).” (Id. ¶¶ 16,

20.) The plaintiff was then designated as a “displaced teacher” and received one year

of her salary and benefits. (Id. ¶ 17.) She worked in different schools “below her

expertise level” before taking leave again in February 2025. (Id. ¶¶ 17–19.)

In April 2025, the plaintiff filed a timely Charge of Discrimination with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging age discrimination. (Id. ¶ 5.)

1 For ECF filings, the Court cites to the page number(s) in the document’s ECF header

unless citing to a particular paragraph or other page designation is more appropriate.

The EEOC issued her a Notice of Right to Sue in August 2025. Ud. 4 6.) The plaintiff

now brings one claim for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in

Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seg. The defendant moves to dismiss

the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (R. 12.)

A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the plaintiffs claims, not the

merits of her case. Gociman v. Loyola Univ. of Chi., 41 F.4th 8738, 885 (7th Cir. 2022).

To survive dismissal, a complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted

as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678

(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The Court accepts as

true well-pleaded facts and “construe[s] all allegations and any reasonable inferences

in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Dix v. Edelman Fin. Servs., LLC, 978 F.3d

507, 512-13 (7th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).

To state a claim for age discrimination under the ADEA, a plaintiff must allege that

she suffered an adverse employment action because of her age. Levin v. Madigan, 697

F. Supp. 2d 958, 966 (N.D. IIL. 2010) (citing Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074,

1084 (7th Cir. 2008)). The defendant argues the complaint does not adequately allege

any adverse action taken due to the plaintiffs age. (R. 12 at 3-4.) However, the

plaintiff alleges that she, a woman over forty, took initiative at work and otherwise

performed her duties satisfactorily for several decades, yet was replaced by someone

below forty. (R. 1 9 13-16.) One reasonable inference from these allegations is that

she was fired due to her age. Further, the plaintiff claims that she was provided a

pretextual reason for her change in position, when the decision was really due to her

age. Together, the plaintiffs allegations and reasonable inferences drawn from those

allegations satisfy the minimal pleading requirements at this stage. See Kaminski v.

Elite Staffing, Inc., 23 F.4th 774, 777 (7th Cir. 2022) (plaintiffs need only allege facts

to “allow for a plausible inference that the adverse action suffered was connected to

her [age]”). The defendant’s reliance on Kaminski falls flat because there, the plaintiff

failed to allege any “link” between her adverse employment action and her protected

characteristic. Jd. Reading the plaintiffs allegations favorably to her and drawing

reasonable inferences from them, the plaintiff here has provided that link. The

defendant also argues that the plaintiff pled herself out of court by alleging her

position was changed due to budget cuts. (R. 12 at 4.) But the plaintiff claims this

was a pretextual reason she was given, while the real reason was her age.

Accordingly, the Court denies the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

ASS

Date: June 1, 2026

JEREMY C. DANIEL

United States District Judge