the court will not presume that it is meritorious merely as a result of its filing.
Golden has not worked at Clayton since April 26, 1991. Baily and Magit, Golden's supervisors, no longer work for Clayton. Clayton has an anti-discrimination policy. A permanent injunction may require the continuing supervision of the court, which is costly. Walgreen Co. v. Sara Creek Property Co., B.V., 966 F.2d 273, 276 (7th Cir. 1992) (citing Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 391-92 (7th Cir. 1984)). "The clear purpose of Title VII is to bring an end to the proscribed discriminatory practices and to make whole, in a pecuniary fashion those who have suffered by it." Williams v. General Foods Corp., 492 F.2d at 407 (quoting Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 416 F.2d 711, 720 (7th Cir. 1969)). "Where, however, the proscribed discriminatory practice has been terminated and there is little likelihood of recurrence, it would not be an abuse of discretion for a lower court to deny injunctive relief." Id. Clayton has shown by the dearth of complaints against it in the last four years that there is little likelihood of recurrent violations. Thus, the purpose of Title VII will not be advanced further by enjoining Clayton from doing what it is already not doing, engaging in unlawful employment practices. Burdening the court, Clayton and the E.E.O.C. with the costs incumbent in a permanent injunction is not justified. Accordingly, Clayton's motion for summary judgment is granted as to the E.E.O.C.'s claim for injunctive relief.
2. Monetary Relief
Clayton contends that no monetary issues remain before the court. Ware has been reinstated by Clayton, settled all back pay issues, accepted settlement funds, and released all claims for back pay. The E.E.O.C. does not contest these facts. However, it contends, and the court agrees, that genuine issues of fact remain as to whether Rowland was subject to unlawful employment practices, and whether she is entitled to back pay.
Rowland has asserted in a sworn affidavit that she was subjected to unwelcome verbal and physical sexual advances during the course of her employment. She asserts that this created an offensive work environment which caused her to be constructively discharged. Clayton asserts that she was not constructively discharged because on her letter of resignation and on several employment applications Rowland indicated that she was leaving Clayton "voluntarily" to pursue better or different employment opportunities. Rowland rejoins that she did so only to insure that she obtained a good recommendation from Clayton.
Rowland's explanation for why she was not candid in her letter of resignation and employment applications is arguably plausible. Furthermore, none of those documents are sworn statements as is her affidavit. The statement in her deposition that she "voluntarily resigned," (Rowland Dep. at 27), from Clayton is not determinative of whether she was constructively discharged. Rowland is not an attorney and her statement that she left "voluntarily" does not carry with it the legal conclusion that she was not constructively discharged. To her, this statement might merely indicate that she was not literally fired. Whether she was constructively discharged is a genuine issue of material fact yet to be determined at trial
and summary judgment is not appropriate. Consequently, whether Rowland is entitled to back pay also remains to be determined. Accordingly, Clayton's motion for summary judgment on the E.E.O.C.'s claim for monetary relief is denied.
For the reasons stated above, the E.E.O.C.'s motion to amend the complaint is granted. Clayton's motion for summary judgment is granted as to the claim for injunctive relief and denied as to the claim for monetary relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CHARLES RONALD NORGLE, SR., Judge
United States District Court