United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
August 10, 2005.
FAITH N. WELLS Plaintiff,
EN PRO QUINCY COMPRESSOR, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: RICHARD MILLS, Senior District Judge
The Court now Considers Defendant En Pro Quincy Compressor's
Motion to Dismiss.
Defendant En Pro Quincy Compressor discharged Plaintiff pro
se Faith Wells from its employ on June 25, 2003. Wells, a black
woman who worked for the Defendant as a machinist since 1972,
believed that the discharge was racially motivated. She filed a
charge with the Illinois Department of Human Rights on May 14,
2004, alleging that the Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. The charge was apparently cross-filed with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that same day.
A Right to Sue letter was ultimately issued and Wells filed
suit against the Defendant on August 23, 2004, in the Eighth
Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois. Wells' Complaint
alleged that the Defendant fired her because of her race. The
Defendant removed the case to this Court on September 17, 2004,
and filed a motion to dismiss on July 15, 2005. The Defendant
contends that Wells failed to file her charge within the
applicable statute of limitations. Albeit untimely, Wells filed
her opposition to the Defendant's motion.
Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to "discriminate
against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment" because of the
individual's race. See § 2000e-2(a)(1). In Illinois, a
plaintiff who wishes to file an employment discrimination charge
with the EEOC must do so within 300 days "after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred." See Stepney
v. Naperville School Dist. 203, 392 F.3d 236, 239 (7th Cir.
2004), citing § 2000e-5(e)(1); Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v.
Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 104-05, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106
(2002); Speer v. Rand McNally & Co., 123 F.3d 658, 662 (7th
In her Complaint, Wells alleges that the Defendant discharged
her on June 25, 2003. Wells had 300 days from that date to timely
file a claim against the Defendant. She did not file her claim
until May 14, 2004. By that time, more than 300 days had passed
since the Defendant's allegedly unlawful act. Thus, Wells' claim
Ergo, Defendant En Pro Quincy Compressor's Motion to Dismiss
(d/e 7) is ALLOWED. This CASE IS CLOSED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.