Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

CARDENAS v. FLEETWOOD

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois


November 22, 2004.

CARDENAS
v.
FLEETWOOD, INC.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES ZAGEL, District Judge

Plaintiff Abel Cardenas filed a complaint alleging age-based employment discrimination by Defendant Fleetwood, Inc. ("Fleetwood"). On September 9, 2004, Cardenas filed a motion to extend the discovery deadline in order to propound additional discovery on Fleetwood. At a hearing on September 28, 2004 I asked both parties to address the potential value of additional discovery. I specifically urged Cardenas to address any facts disclosed during traditional discovery that would support his request to extend discovery and to address the proposed scope of any further discovery.

Cardenas wishes to propound the following additional discovery on Fleetwood: 1) written discovery addressing the facts and circumstances of the company's decision to dismiss eleven employees within the protected class between December 2001 and September 2002, including their names and last known addresses; 2) written discovery regarding a reorganization that was the alleged reason for at least some of the eleven dismissals; and 3) written discovery addressing the facts and circumstances of the company's decision not to re-hire fourteen individuals within the protected class when Fleetwood Systems became Fleetwood, Inc. in 1999.

I previously denied Cardenas's Motion to Compel Fleetwood to furnish contact information for the eleven individuals dismissed between December 2001 and September 2002. With one exception, Cardenas has failed to establish how information uncovered during the course of discovery entitles him to further discovery on this topic. The exception stems from the depositions of Fleetwood staff including Human Resources Director Zak Volz. It appears that Volz was unable or unwilling to discuss the facts surrounding the decisions to dismiss these eleven employees, other than to suggest that several positions were eliminated due to a "reorganization." Fleetwood offered no further information about this alleged reorganization. Therefore, Cardenas is entitled to propound written discovery to determine the scope and nature of the reorganization, including the departments that were reorganized and the ages of the employees retained in departments in which members of the protected age group were dismissed. However, this is the full extent of the additional discovery Cardenas may pursue on this issue.

  With respect to the 1999 "failure to hire" fourteen individuals in the protected class, Cardenas has demonstrated the need to extend discovery on a very limited basis. During his deposition, Volz stated that he could only confirm the accuracy of documents Cardenas obtained from the Illinois Department of Human Rights by reviewing company records that were not available during the deposition. Therefore, Cardenas may serve Requests for Admission on Fleetwood regarding the truth and accuracy of the documents obtained from the Illinois Department of Human Rights. Additionally, Volz offered testimony suggesting that several individuals retained by Fleetwood in 1999 were not employed with the company in early 2000. Plaintiff may propound written discovery to determine the names, ages and reasons for the departures of the individuals specifically identified by Volz.

20041122

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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