Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Young v. Control Solutions, LLC

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

June 19, 2017

SCHLIDA R. YOUNG, Plaintiff,
CONTROL SOLUTIONS, LLC, a Delaware Corporation and RUTH MASLEY, in her Individual and Official Capacities, Defendants.


          SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN United States District Court Judge.

         The plaintiff, Schlida R. Young, brings this action against her former supervisor, Ruth Masley, and her former employer, Control Solutions, LLC, alleging that the defendants discriminated against her based on her race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. After a contentious discovery process, the defendants now move for summary judgment on all counts [72]. For the reasons set forth herein, that motion is granted.

         Preliminary Matters

         As an initial matter, this Court notes that Young's memorandum of law in opposition to summary judgment violates Local Rules 7.1 and 5.2. Local Rule 7.1 provides, in pertinent part, that briefs submitted to the court may not exceed 15 pages in length without prior approval of the court, and that any brief in excess of 15 pages must contain a table of contents and a table of cases. Local Rule 5.2(c) requires, in pertinent part, that typed documents submitted to the court must have a line spacing of at least 2.0 lines. Violation of either Local Rule 5.2 or Local Rule 7.1 is a sufficient basis for striking a brief in its entirety.

         Here, without prior leave of court, Young filed a 17 page long memorandum of law in opposition to summary judgment. Young's memorandum of law, moreover, had a line spacing of 1.49 lines, hiding the fact that her memorandum, when properly formatted, would have been at least 33% longer than the rules allow. Although this Court declines to strike Young's filing at this juncture in the proceedings, this Court cautions that any future filings that violate Local Rules 5.2 or 7.1 will be summarily stricken.

         This Court next turns its attention to Young's alleged violations of Local Rule 56.1. The defendants ask this Court to strike Young's additional statement of material facts based on a number of procedural violations. Although the defendants are well within their rights to make this request, this Court believes that striking the statement would be a disproportionate response to the nature of the violations at issue, which include filing the statement twenty-two minutes after the deadline for doing so and filing forty-one statements of fact rather than the forty permitted by the local rules.

         Although the plaintiff's filing was untimely, the brief delay caused no prejudice to the defendants and no delay to this case. In the interest of justice, this Court will overlook the untimely filing and consider the statement of additional material facts, but notes that the seemingly standard practice of waiting until the last hour before midnight to file documents with the Court is an irresponsible practice that leaves little room for error in the event of filing-related problems. Similarly, to the extent that Young has violated the local rules by filing forty-one statements of additional fact rather than the forty permitted by the local rules, the proper response is to strike the excess statements of fact. Accordingly, additional statement of material fact forty-one is stricken.

         The defendants also note that Young failed to include pinpoint citations in her statement of additional facts. It is not clear, however, that the Local Rules expressly require such citations and, in any event, the evidence that the plaintiff relies on is not so voluminous as to necessitate pinpoint citations. This Court accordingly declines to strike Young's additional statement of material facts on this basis.

         The defendants also ask this Court to strike those responses to their statement of facts or statements of additional fact which are based on Young and Edward Owens' unsworn declarations. Both declarations in question state that they are given pursuant to a nonexistent statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1776, which this Court assumes is an attempt to reference the provisions concerning unsworn declarations provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Section 1746, however, does not apply to the declarations in question because neither declaration contains the language that section 1746 expressly requires. Because these declarations were not sworn or signed under penalty of perjury, they are outside the range of evidence that can be considered on summary judgment. DeBruyne v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 920 F.2d 457, 471 (7th Cir. 1990). This Court therefore strikes plaintiff's statements of additional facts ¶¶ 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40 and deems admitted defendant's statements of undisputed material fact ¶¶ 3, 8, 14, 16, 20, 21, 31, 49, 53, 59, 60, and 63. To the extent the plaintiff's statements of additional facts or responses to the defendants' statements of fact rely on the declarations and additional evidence, this Court will disregard the factual assertions supported only by the declarations. The Court additionally notes that Young's responses to statements of facts number ¶¶ 33, 44, 45, 48, 50, and 58 are unsupported by any citations to the record as is required by Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B). Accordingly, those statements of fact are deemed to be admitted. Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003).


         The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Control Solutions is a manufacturer of technology systems and components, including battery chargers, cables, user interface systems, and motion control products. In addition to supplying products to the military, Control Solutions is also an original equipment manufacturer for many customers in the industrial and commercial markets. In 2009, Control Solutions hired David McDermott as a project lead. McDermott was subsequently promoted to be a program manager, and Ruth Masley became his direct supervisor. At the time McDermott was the only employee that Masley supervised. Masley subsequently placed McDermott on a performance improvement plan. McDermott ultimately resigned in August 2011 after being informed that he would be terminated if his performance did not improve. McDermott is black.

         Young was hired as a program manager by Control Solutions in December 2011. Masley and other Control Solutions' managers interviewed Young prior to her hiring, and Masley made the decision to offer the position to Young based on her determination that Young was well-qualified for the position. Masley, having interviewed Young, was aware that Young was black at the time that she was hired. Young was Control Solutions' only Program Manager during her employment, and reported directly to Masley. As a Program Manager, Young was responsible for leading product development teams, developing and updating schedules, estimating and tracking product budgets, interfacing with customers, and providing up-to-date schedule and cost estimates to Control Solutions' management.

         In December 2012, Young was placed on a 90 day performance improvement plan (PIP). Young was placed on the PIP after Masley concluded that Young was not adequately performing her duties, was disobeying directions, and was engaging in confrontational interactions with coworkers and clients. Of particular concern to Masley was Young's failure to promptly update schedules and budgets for projects that she was assigned to manage.

         The PIP additionally described a number of complaints about Young that Masley had received from client contacts and ...

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.