Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
BADILLO v. CENTRAL STEEL & WIRE CO.
August 25, 1980
GEORGE BADILLO, PLAINTIFF,
CENTRAL STEEL & WIRE COMPANY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.
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.
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
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