United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
October 3, 2005.
MARIA PEREZ, Plaintiff,
BELMONT CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, et al., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON SHADUR, Senior District Judge
Maria Perez ("Perez") has filed a self-prepared Complaint of
Employment Discrimination*fn1 against her ex-employers,
identified as either or both of Belmont Christian School and
Belmont Assembly of God. This sua sponte order addresses both
Perez' In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") and one
substantive aspect of her action of which she should be aware.
As for the Application, although its Paragraph 4 reflects the
absence of any cash in hand, its Paragraphs 2, 3.b and 3.d show
that Perez and her husband have a combined monthly income of
$3,400. That being the case, the Application does not support a
grant of in forma pauperis status. Accordingly the Application is
denied, but without prejudice to a possible further showing that would demonstrate Perez' possible entitlement to in forma
In the meantime, however, with Perez having received the
right-to-sue letter on June 30, 2005 according to Complaint ¶
8(b), her submission of the Complaint on September 28 came on the
last day of the 90-day period allowed by statute. Perez should
not be prejudiced by the fact that either the later payment of
the $250 filing fee or any further filing referred to in the
preceding paragraph could render this lawsuit untimely.
Accordingly, if she either pays the filing fee or makes a
satisfactory showing calling for in forma pauperis treatment on
or before October 21, 2005, the September 28 date will continue
to be considered as the filing date of this action.
This Court has also noted that Perez filed her Charge of
Discrimination over two years ago on August 14, 2003. No
plaintiff should be permitted to let an employment discrimination
claim lie fallow for such an extended period of time so that, if
successful, plaintiff would be entitled to back pay for the
extended period during which the charge was pending. That issue
of course remains for the future, but Perez should be aware of
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.