IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
June 29, 2010
DENNIS SIMON, PLAINTIFF,
QUEEN OF HEAVEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
Dennis Simon ("Simon") has filed a Title VII Complaint of Employment Discrimination against his ex-employer, Queen of Heaven Cemetery ("Queen of Heaven"), and two individual defendants, filling out the standard form of Complaint provided by this District Court's Clerk's Office for pro se filers. Simon has accompanied the Complaint with two other Clerk's-Office-supplied forms: an In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel ("Motion"). Because Simon has pleaded himself out of court, this Court dismisses both the Complaint and this action as untimely.
Usually the issue of timeliness or untimeliness in an employment action poses the question whether a plaintiff has brought suit within the statutorily prescribed 90-day period after EEOC's issuance of a right-to-sue letter. But in this instance Simon strikes out at an even earlier stage in the process:
1. According to Simon's Charge of Discrimination, a copy of which is attached, the alleged discrimination to which he was subjected ended on April 6, 2009, when he was discharged by Queen of Heaven.
2. Simon did not present his Charge of Discrimination to the Illinois Department of Human Rights and EEOC until March 15, 2010, more than 340 days later, well outside of the 300 day limit prescribed by 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(e)(1). Understandably EEOC's right-to-sue letter, a copy of which is also attached, stated that EEOC had closed its file because:
Your charge was not timely filed with EEOC; in other words, you waited too long after the date(s) of the alleged discrimination to file your charge.
Because a timely charge of discrimination, in addition to the later requirement of the timely institution of suit after EEOC has issued a right-to-sue letter, is a prerequisite to bringing a court action, Simon cannot proceed. Both the Complaint and this action are dismissed with prejudice, and both the Application and the Motion are denied as moot.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.