Sanders v. Illinois Department of Central Management Services
Filing
59
OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion 52 and determines that Plaintiff essentially seeks partial summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(g) based on the Administrative Decision. The Court further grants Defendant an extension of time to December 2, 2011, to respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Bar Defendant from Arguing Certain Defenses 52 . Defendant is specifically directed to address whether Plaintiff is en titled to partial summary judgment based on his argument that Administrative Decision operates as res judicata or collateral estoppel to establish that CMS did not direct Plaintiff to undergo the IMEs for the purpose of determining whether he (a) was able to perform the essential functions of his job, or (b) posed a threat to the safety of others in the workplace. Plaintiff is given until December 16, 2011, to file any reply. See written order entered by Judge Cudmore on 11/10/2011. (LB, ilcd)
E-FILED
Thursday, 10 November, 2011 04:29:28 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MICHAEL A. SANDERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
CENTRAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 09-CV-3207
OPINION
BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Bar Defendant from
Arguing Certain Defenses (d/e 52). Pro se Plaintiff Michael Sanders
alleges a claim against Defendant Central Management Services (CMS)
for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.
§ 12112(d)(4)(A), because CMS allegedly repeatedly and wrongfully
ordered him to submit to independent medical examinations (IMEs) and
then wrongfully disciplined and discharged him for refusing to submit to any
of the illegal examinations. Complaint (d/e 1). CMS alleges as it second
affirmative defense that it ordered Sanders to undergo the IMEs “to make
inquiry into the ability of Plaintiff to perform job-related functions.” Answer
(d/e 6), at 5.
Page 1 of 4
The ADA states that an employer “shall not require a medical
examination and shall not make inquiries of an employee as to whether
such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or
severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown
to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 12112(d)(4)(A). The ADA further authorizes an employer to “make
inquiries into the ability of an employee to perform job-related functions.”
42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(B).
In this case, the Illinois Civil Service Commission reversed CMS’s
decision to discharge Sanders and ordered his reinstatement to his position
at CMS. Motion, Collective Exhibit A16 CMS v. Sanders, Case No. DA-1108, dated August 21, 2008, adopting the Recommended Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge entered August 8, 2009, (Administrative
Decision). CMS sought judicial review, and the Illinois Circuit Court for
Sangamon County, Illinois, affirmed the Administrative Decision. Motion,
Collective Exhibit A16 Illinois Department of Central Management Services
v. Illinois Civil Service Commission, et al., Case No. 08-MR-551, Order
entered February 24, 2009.
The Court has reviewed the Motion and determined that Sanders
essentially seeks partial summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(g) based on the Administrative Decision. Sanders
Page 2 of 4
argues that the Administrative Decision has preclusive effect in this case.
Sanders essentially argues that the Administrative Decision establishes, as
a matter of res judicata or collateral estoppel, that CMS did not direct
Sanders to undergo the IMEs for the purpose of determining whether he
(a) was able to perform the essential functions of his job, or (b) posed a
threat to the safety of others in the workplace. Motion, attached
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Bar Defendant from Arguing
Certain Defenses (Plaintiff’s Memorandum), at 5, 14-15.
CMS states that the Motion is unclear and that it does not comply
with Local Rule 7.1 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) regarding
motions for summary judgment. The Local Rule on summary judgment
motions does not apply to pro se parties, such as Sanders. Local Rule
7.1(D)(6). Rule 56(c) requires Sanders to submit competent evidence to
support his Motion. Sanders raises essentially a legal question of the
preclusive effect of the Administrative Decision. Given that Sanders is
proceeding pro se, the Court finds that the documents submitted in support
of the Motion are sufficient to raise the issue of the preclusive effect of the
Administrative Decision and to allow CMS to respond. If CMS has some
basis to challenge the authenticity or accuracy of the Administrative
Decision submitted by Sanders, it may raise that issue in its response.
Page 3 of 4
CMS also asks for additional time to respond to the Motion. The
request for additional time is allowed because the Motion does not formally
ask for partial summary judgment, and so, CMS properly sought the
guidance of the Court on the precise posture of the Motion.
WHEREFORE, the Court grants Defendant an extension of time to
December 2, 2011, to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion to Bar Defendant from
Arguing Certain Defenses (d/e 52). Defendant is specifically directed to
address whether Sanders is entitled to partial summary judgment based on
his argument that Administrative Decision operates as res judicata or
collateral estoppel to establish that CMS did not direct Sanders to undergo
the IMEs for the purpose of determining whether he (a) was able to perform
the essential functions of his job, or (b) posed a threat to the safety of
others in the workplace. Sanders is given until December 16, 2011, to file
any reply.
ENTER: November 10, 2011
s/ Byron G. Cudmore
BYRON G. CUDMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 4 of 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?