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.

Egan v. Huntington Copper Moody & Maguire, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division

April 10, 2015

JULIA EGAN, Plaintiff,
v.
HUNTINGTON COPPER MOODY & MAGUIRE, INC., HCMM, INC., PATRICK MAGUIRE, DAVID PINEDA, ROBERT POPKEY, WILLIAM SHAPCOTT, JOHN MORRIS, and HUNTINGTON COPPER, LLC, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GARY FEINERMAN, District Judge.

Julia Egan brought this suit against David Pineda and others, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq., the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). Doc. 1. The court dismissed Egan's claims against Pineda for lack of personal jurisdiction, Docs. 85-86 (reported at 2014 WL 585316 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2014)), and very recently granted summary judgment to the defendants that remained, Docs. 162-163 (reported at 2015 WL 1396187 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 24, 2015)), and entered final judgment, Doc. 164. One loose end remains, Pineda's motion for sanctions against Egan and her attorney, Lewis G. Spicer of the Levine & Blit firm in New York. Doc. 98.

The complaint's seventy-fifth paragraph alleges that Egan "was repeatedly caused to be subjected to unwelcome verbal and physical actions of a sexual nature and was further victimized by acts of sexual assault by the defendants' male employees in her work environment throughout her employment tenure with defendants." Doc. 1 at ¶ 75 (emphases added). At her January 2014 deposition, however, when questioned by Pineda, who was pro se, Egan denied that she had ever been sexually assaulted by her male co-workers, and denied further that she had ever told Spicer that any such assault(s) had occurred:

Q. Page 12, No. 75. The statement "caused to be subjected to unwelcome verbal and victimized by acts of sexual assault" -
A. I don't remember reading that in the Complaint.
Q. Whether you read it isn't the question. It's that you wrote it.
A. I actually didn't write that No. 75.
Q. Do you have it in front of you?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you read No. 75, please?
A. Sure. (Reading): Pursuant to the acts and practices of the defendants, its employees and/or agents, as alleged above, the plaintiff was repeatedly caused to be subjected to unwelcome verbal and physical actions of a sexual nature and was further victimized by acts of sexual assault by the defendants' male employees in her work environment throughout her employment tenure with defendants.
I was not subject to any sexual assault, and I did not write that.
MR. SPICER: Can we go off the record for one moment?
MR. ALLEN: No.
MR. SPICER: No.
Q. Why did you write it if it's not true? Are you saying it's not true?
A. I'm saying that I had verbal and - I wouldn't say physical actions, but verbal actions of a nature as disclosed in all the other documents in the binder that I submitted which did include victimization based on my weight and gender, but there was no sexual - sexual assault.
Q. Why did you write it?
A. I didn't write ...

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.