Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Yancick v. Hanna Steel Corp.

January 20, 2010

MATTHEW B. YANCICK PLAINTIFF,
v.
HANNA STEEL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joe Billy Mcdade United States District Judge

OPINION and ORDER

Before the Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, Hanna Steel Corporation, on September 21, 2009 [Doc. 23], the"Motion to Alter or Amend the November 16, 2009 Order" filed by Plaintiff, Matthew B. Yancick, on November 17, 2009 [Doc. 41], the Motion to Amend/Correct Memorandum in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend filed by Plaintiff on November 17, 2009 [Doc. 43], the "Objection" to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff on November 18, 2009 [Doc. 44], and the Motions for Oral Arguments on Plaintiff's Motions filed by Plaintiff on November 20, 2009 [Docs. 46 and 48].

For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED, the Motion to Amend/Correct is DENIED AS MOOT, the "Objection" is DENIED, and the Motions for Oral Argument are DENIED.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff's response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was due on October 30, 2009. Plaintiff failed to file a response that complied with the Local Rules by the deadline. For the reasons outlined in this Court's November 16, 2009 Order, Plaintiff is not permitted to file a response to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff now has filed a "Motion to Alter or Amend November 16, 2009 Order" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) [Doc. 41]. Rule 54(b) does not provide a basis for relief that Plaintiff seeks. The Motion is DENIED. The deadlines imposed in this case mandate action; they are not starting dates for intention or diligence. Plaintiff was required to file a complete and Local Rule compliant response by the deadline and failed to do so. Whether he intended to do so or worked diligently to do so is irrelevant. Plaintiff's subsequent Motion to Correct a mistake in his memorandum in support of the Motion to Alter or Amend is DENIED AS MOOT.

Plaintiff's "objection" to consideration of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff's objection, that Defendant's exhibits were filed a day late and therefore should not be considered, is untimely because it was filed almost two months after filing of the Motion for Summary Judgment. In any event, the "objection" is wholly without merit.

Plaintiff's Motions for Oral Argument are similarly DENIED. Local Rule 7.1(A)(2) provides that "[a] party desiring oral arguments on a motion filed under subparagraph (B) of this Rule shall so specify in the motion or opposition thereto and shall state the reason why oral argument is desired." Plaintiff seeks oral arguments on the Motion to Alter or Amend but makes the request in a separate motion and did not specify the desire for oral arguments in the Motion to Alter or Amend. As such, the Motion is DENIED. In any event, oral arguments on the Motion to Alter or Amend would not aid the Court in its determination. Plaintiff further requests oral arguments on the Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff indicates that oral arguments are necessary in order to explain the "initial burden as the summary judgment movant." The Court does not require argument on the summary judgment standard.

The only motion that remains is the Motion for Summary Judgment

BACKGROUND

Matthew B. Yancick was employed by Hanna Steel Corporation at its plant in Pekin, Illinois from 2003 to December 12, 2005. Yancick's employment came to an end rather unfortunately: a steel coil fell onto his legs causing significant injury. Yancick ultimately received $265,000.00 from Hanna Steel's Worker's Compensation Insurance carrier for his work-place related injuries. Yancick alleges, however, that the accident was the culmination of work-place racial harassment by another Hanna Steel employee, Brad Johnson, who was operating the machinery from which the steel coil fell. On December 11, 2007, Yancick filed suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging reverse racial harassment.

According to Yancick's deposition testimony, when Johnson started working for Hanna Steel, they had a fine relationship. (Matthew B. Yancick Dep. pp. 128-129). At some point, however, the relationship changed. In one incident between Yancick and Johnson at work, Johnson asked Yancick why he had a better radio and nice boots. (Yancick Dep. pp. 129-130). Yancick believed that this interaction had an "uncomfortable air to it" and mentioned the incident to Hershel Hicks, a supervisor; he also indicated that the incident "didn't make any sense." (Id. at pp. 129-130, 152). There is no indication in the record that Yancick reported that this incident was a form of racial harassment. In another incident, Yancick was on his way to get a coil and stated:

I'll never forget this. Brad saw me coming, and it was like a speed walk, I mean, right towards me like getting ready to pounce. And I wanted to get my coil. We stopped. He stopped with his nose about right ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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