IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
November 3, 2008
MAE F. WORMELY, PLAINTIFF,
CITY OF CHICAGO, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
On October 17, 2008 this Court issued a very brief memorandum order ("Order") that called the attention of counsel for plaintiff Mae Wormely ("Wormely") to an important deficiency in her Title VII employment discrimination Complaint against her ex-employer City of Chicago ("City"): the omission of an EEOC right-to-sue letter regarding Wormely's charge of race-based discrimination and a related retaliation claim. But instead of tendering a brief and simple amendment to the Complaint covering that omission, Wormely's counsel took the needless (and really meaningless) step of refiling the identical Complaint (changed only by heading it with the caption "FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT" in place of "COMPLAINT"), to which refiling counsel did attach the requested copy of an EEOC July 15, 2008 right-to-sue letter.*fn1
This memorandum order is issued because of some further information that, in light of the new filing, needs to be provided to address the timeliness of the steps taken by Wormely or on her behalf. With EEOC's letter having been issued on July 15 and suit having been filed on October 15, 2008 (the 92nd day after such issuance), Wormely must promptly provide a written representation as to her date of receipt of the right-to-sue letter. And at the same time that is done, photocopies of her charge or charges of discrimination should also be proffered to facilitate this Court's ascertainment of the different aspects of timeliness. Accordingly Wormely's counsel is ordered to submit those materials by way of a brief amendment to the First Amended Complaint (not a self-contained Second Amended Complaint) on or before November 17, 2008.