Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Intervene, Charles Gram is directed to file his Complaint In Intervention no later than 7 days from the date of this Order. Further granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion to Respond to Documents 17 and 18 a nd to File an Amended Complaint in Intervention. The motion is granted insofar as Grams seeks leave to respond to documents 17 and 18 , and is allowed 21 days from the date of this Order to file such response. The motion is denied insofar as Grams seeks leave to filed an Amended Complaint in Intervention. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on January 25, 2012. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
v.

PLAINTIFF

Civil No. 11-2153

OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC.

DEFENDANT

O R D E R
Now

on

this

25th

day

of

January,

2012,

come

on

for

consideration Charles Grams's Motion To Intervene (document #14)
and Grams's Request To Respond To Docs #17-18 And To File An
Amended Complaint In Intervention (document #19), and from said
motions, and the responses thereto, the Court finds and orders as
follows:
1.

Plaintiff

Equal

Employment

Opportunity

Commission

("EEOC") brought this suit upon the complaint of Charles Grams
("Grams") that he was denied reasonable accommodation under the
Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") by policies of defendant
Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. ("Old Dominion"). Those policies,
according to the Complaint, prohibit any truck driver who selfreports alcohol abuse from returning to a driving position, and
condition return to a non-driving position upon enrollment in a
treatment program.
2.

Grams moves to intervene, as is his right by statute.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), when the EEOC institutes a
civil action, the person aggrieved has the right to intervene.

The

Court

finds,

therefore,

that

Charles

Grams's

Motion

To

Intervene should be granted.
3.

There is now pending a Motion To Dismiss filed by Old

Dominion, and Grams desires to respond to that motion.

Old

Dominion objects, arguing that its motion is directed only at the
claim made by EEOC, and that Grams has no standing to respond as
he is not yet a party.
The Court believes that it will further the interests of
justice to allow Grams to file his Complaint In Intervention,
which incorporates EEOC's Complaint and adds a claim for damages,
and then to respond to the Motion To Dismiss.

It will, therefore,

grant Grams's Request To Respond To Docs #17-18 And To File An
Amended Complaint In Intervention to the extent it seeks leave to
respond to documents #17 and #18.
4.

To the extent Grams' Request To Respond To Docs #17-18

And To File An Amended Complaint In Intervention seeks leave to
file "a more comprehensive complaint in intervention than the one
Grams previously proposed," it will be denied.

Local Rule 5.5(e)

requires a party moving to amend a pleading to attach a copy of
the proposed amendment to the motion, and the motion "must contain
a concise statement setting out what exactly is being amended in
the new pleading."

Grams has not complied with this Rule.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Charles Grams's Motion To
Intervene (document #14) is granted, and Grams is directed to file

-2-

his Complaint In Intervention no later than seven days from the
date of this Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Grams's Request To Respond To Docs
#17-18 And To File An Amended Complaint In Intervention (document
#19) is granted in part and denied in part.
The motion is granted insofar as Grams seeks leave to respond
to documents #17 and #18, and he is allowed twenty-one days from
the date of this Order to file such response.
The motion is denied insofar as Grams seeks leave to file an
Amended Complaint In Intervention.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-