Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BADILLO v. CENTRAL STEEL & WIRE CO.

August 25, 1980

GEORGE BADILLO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CENTRAL STEEL & WIRE COMPANY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.

  OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Central Steel & Wire Co. ("Central") has moved in the alternative to dismiss the Amended Complaint*fn1 filed by plaintiff George Badillo ("Badillo") or to strike various of the Amended Complaint's allegations. For the reasons stated in this opinion and order, Central's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Facts

In January 1977 Badillo filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") claiming that his discharge by Central had been unlawfully based on Badillo's national origin. On March 17, 1979 Badillo received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC. Badillo filed the initial complaint in this case pro se on May 23, 1979,*fn2 Paragraph A of which charged the following discriminatory acts by Central:

  (b) Defendant terminated plaintiff's employment
      because of plaintiff's race . . . [and]
      national origin. . .
  (d) Because of plaintiff's race . . . [and]
      national origin, defendant committed the
      following act or acts against plaintiff: The
      Employer's agents intimidated me and other
      workers on the basis of our race and/or
      national origin. The employer engaged in
      discriminatory hiring practices.

That complaint was not served on Central because Badillo failed to file the form that initiates service of process.

At a September 25, 1979 status hearing initiated by Judge Marshall (counsel having appeared for Badillo on that date), leave was granted to file an Amended Complaint. That Amended Complaint was filed October 9, 1979 and served on Central October 12, 1979.*fn3 It expands the allegations of the original complaint materially:

  1.  It contains, as the original complaint did
      not, specific class allegations under
      Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) (though Paragraph 9 of
      the original complaint had included the
      reference to "other workers" quoted above).
      Moreover the Amended Complaint defined the
      purported class (as the original complaint
      did not) as "all blacks, females and persons
      discriminated against because of their
      national origin who have been or will be
      employed by Central Steel, and who have been,
      are being, or as a result of the operation of
      current policies will be discriminated

      against in terms and conditions of
      employment, such as hiring, training,
      placement, assignments, promotion, transfer,
      termination, layoff, and discipline, because
      of their national origin, race, or sex."
  2.  Count I charges various discriminatory
      policies and practices against class members
      generally and Badillo individually in
      violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
      Act of 1964 ("Title VII").
  3.  Count II charges that the allegedly
      discriminatory policies and practices have
      violated the rights of "Badillo and other
      black*fn4 and national origin members of the
      class" under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
  4.  Count III charges that various policies and
      practices, allegedly discriminatory against
      female members of the class, have violated
      the rights of such female class members under
      Title VII and the rights of Badillo
      personally by depriving him of a
      nondiscriminatory place of employment.
      Jurisdictional Limitations as to Badillo's Individual
                             Claims

As already implied by footnote 1, Badillo's Section 1981 claims under Count II do not involve any procedural prerequisite comparable to the ninety-day jurisdictional condition that attaches to Title VII claims. Instead the appropriate Illinois ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.