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.

Smith v. Metromex Contractors

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION


July 14, 2009

ALTON SMITH, PLAINTIFF,
v.
METROMEX CONTRACTORS, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Alton Smith ("Smith") has utilized the printed form provided by this District Court's Clerk's Office to file a self-prepared Complaint of Employment Discrimination against his former employer Metromex Contractors ("Metromex")--"self-prepared" in the sense that all the information requested in that document has been provided in hand-printed form. Although this Court is contemporaneously issuing its typical initial scheduling order, this memorandum order is also being issued to call Smith's attention to some inconsistencies in his filing.

First, Complaint ¶6 charges that Metromex's asserted race-based discrimination took place on or about July 15, 2007. If that were indeed the case, his July 11, 2008 filing of a Charge of Discrimination with the Illinois Department of Human Rights would have been untimely, thus requiring dismissal of this action. But that appears to be inconsistent with the Charge of Discrimination itself, which lists July 11, 2008 (the date on which the Charge was filled out) as the latest date on which discrimination took place, and it is also at odds with Smith's hand-printed allegations in Complaint ¶¶12(h) and 13. Accordingly Smith is directed on or before July 27, 2009 to file an appropriate amendment to the Complaint to clarify the matter.

Second, Complaint ¶13 responds to the printed form's requirement of a statement of facts supporting Smith's discrimination claim in these terms:

Detailed dates of occurrences of discrimination, letter of right to sue from EEOC, another party as a witness who is also a plaintiff in the suit.

That response is entirely unclear, including its reference to another party "who is also a plaintiff in the suit." Here too clarification is necessary, and Smith is ordered to provide a more informative answer as part of his required amendment to the Complaint.

20090714

© 1992-2009 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.