Ross v. Champaign Community Unit School District 4 et al
Filing
40
ORDER: The Defendants motion for protective order 36 is MOOT in part and DENIED in part. The schedule for discovery is extended solely for the purpose of deposing Robin McClain on or before July 3, 2017. The Plaintiffs 38 Motion in Opposition is MOOT in light of the Courts ruling. See written order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Jonathan E. Hawley on 6/1/17. (WG, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 02 June, 2017 09:13:22 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PEORIA DIVISION
HENRY MARTENO ROSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 16-cv-2074-JES-JEH
CHAMPAIGN COMMUNITY UNIT
SCHOOL DISTRICT #4,
Defendant.
Order
The matter before the Court is the Defendant’s [36] Motion for Protective Order
to prevent the deposition of Robin McClain, and the Plaintiff’s response thereto. 1 This
Court held a hearing on the Defendant’s motion on May 22, 2017. For the reasons set
forth below, the motion is MOOT in part and DENIED in part.
I
A
Plaintiff filed his Complaint against the Defendant on March 24, 2016, alleging that
the Defendant retaliated against him for filing a Charge of Discrimination with the Illinois
Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), specifically 29 U.S.C. § 621, Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), specifically 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 2 The
Defendant employed the Plaintiff as a Truancy Interventionist Student Advocate
The Plaintiff proceeding pro se filed a Motion in Opposition as his response on May 30, 2017. Although
the Defendant originally sought to prevent the depositions of two additional individuals, the Plaintiff has
since abandoned his request to depose them. The Defendant’s motion as it relates to those two
individuals is therefore MOOT.
2 The Defendant filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss on June 8, 2016. This Court granted the motion on
October 24, 2016, thereby dismissing Plaintiff’s claims under the ADEA, Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Only the Plaintiff’s three discrete retaliation claims, listed in his original complaint, are still active.
1
1
(“TISA”) from 2009 to 2014, until the Defendant eliminated all TISA employees. The
Defendant invited the Plaintiff to accept a different TISA position through a proprietary
recall letter on August 5, 2014. The Plaintiff accepted and submitted his TISA recall letter
on August 18th. The Defendant did not recall the Plaintiff to a TISA position, but instead
demoted the Plaintiff to a teacher’s aide position. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff
was not recalled as a TISA because he submitted his letter in an untimely manner. The
Defendant thereafter invited the Plaintiff to apply for a public TISA position posting on
August 20, 2014, which the Plaintiff did. The Plaintiff also applied for a hall monitor
position on August 20, 2014. The Defendant did not hire the Plaintiff as a TISA or hall
monitor. The Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive any of these positions due to
retaliation by the Defendant for his filing of an IDHR Complaint of Discrimination in
2011.
The Defendant filed a motion for protective order to prevent the deposition of
Robin McClain on May 15, 2017. Robin McClain supervised TISA employees at the
Defendant school district, including the Plaintiff, from 2007 to 2012. She also worked for
the Defendant in August 2014, but did not supervise TISA employees at that time. While
a TISA supervisor, McClain administered the Truants’ Alternative and Optional
Education Program (“TAEOP”) grant, which funded some TISA employees. However,
McClain had not done so since 2012.
B
The Defendant argues that Robin McClain’s knowledge of the Plaintiff’s
performance as a TISA is irrelevant to the Plaintiff’s retaliation claims and that the
discovery of this knowledge is not proportional to the needs of the case at hand. The
Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s position was not eliminated due to his performance,
but was reduced along with all other TISA positions. Likewise, the Defendant contends
that McClain’s knowledge of the TAEOP grant is not relevant to the Plaintiff’s retaliation
claims.
The Plaintiff maintains that Robin McClain’s knowledge of his employment
performance is relevant to his retaliation claim. The Plaintiff alleges that McClain was his
2
TISA supervisor from 2008-2012, including at the time he filed his IDHR complaint in
2011. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s decision not hire him for a publicly posted
TISA position for which he was qualified was retaliatory and that McClain’s knowledge
of his performance is pertinent to this claim. The Plaintiff also argues that McClain’s
experience administrating the TAEOP grant is relevant to his retaliation claim. The
Plaintiff contends that although he was considered a district funded employee in 2014,
the Defendant paid him partially with TAEOP grant funds. The Plaintiff alleges that recall
letters sent to district funded employees do not have to be submitted in a specific
timespan and that the Defendant therefore inappropriately regarded his acceptance as
untimely. Plaintiff asserts that McClain informed him he would change from being a
TAEOP funded employee to a district funded employee and that she has relevant
knowledge about TISA employee procedures.
II
A
Parties may seek discovery “that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case…” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Considering the
proportionality of discovery requires evaluating the importance of the issues of the
action, how important the discovery is to resolving the issues, and whether the burdens
of the discovery outweigh its likely benefit. Id.
B
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant passed over him for a publicly posted TISA
position as retaliation for him submitting an IDHR complaint in 2011. The Defendant
maintains it didn’t retaliate against the Plaintiff, and it hired someone more qualified than
the Plaintiff. Given the Defendant’s defense, the Plaintiff’s qualifications and prior
performance are at issue in the case. Robin McClain supervised Plaintiff during a
significant portion of the time the Defendant employed him as a TISA and at the time he
made his IDHR complaint. McClain’s knowledge is therefore relevant.
The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant incorrectly treated his acceptance of a
TISA position as untimely submitted because he was not subject to a submission
timeframe as a district funded employee. The Defendant maintains the Plaintiff
3
submitted his recall letter in an untimely fashion. McClain administered the TAEOP grant
while employed as a TISA supervisor. She likely has knowledge of the distinctions
between grant funded and district funded TISA employees and the procedures both must
follow. McClain’s knowledge of the TAEOP grant and TISA positions is therefore
relevant to this issue.
III
For the reasons stated above, the Defendant’s motion [36] is MOOT in part and
DENIED in part. The schedule for discovery is extended solely for the purpose of
deposing Robin McClain on or before July 3, 2017. The Plaintiff’s [38] Motion in
Opposition is MOOT in light of the Court’s ruling.
It is so ordered.
Entered on June 1, 2017
s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?