Sanders v. Illinois Department of Central Management Services
Filing
75
OPINION: Defendant's Motion to Stay Trial 71 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. At the February 27, 2012 pretrial conference, the Court will extend the deadlines for the parties to submit jury instructions and for filing motions in limin e and will give the parties a firm trial date. Defendant's Motion to Strike Compensatory Damages, Punitive Damages, Liquidated Damages, and Jury Demand 72 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The request for liquidated damages is stricken. The request for compensatory damages and punitive damages remains, as does the jury demand. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 2/21/12. (ME, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 21 February, 2012 03:46:38 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
MICHAEL A. SANDERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF
CENTRAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 09-3207
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
This cause is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Stay Trial
(d/e 71) and Motion to Strike Compensatory Damages, Punitive
Damages, Liquidated Damages, and Jury Demand (d/e 72). For the
reasons that follow, the Motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART.
I. ANALYSIS
In the Motion to Stay Trial, Defendant asks that the March 6,
2012 trial and all pre-trial deadlines be stayed pending resolution of the
parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Contemporaneously with
this Order, the Court has ruled on the pending motions for summary
judgment, denying both of them. Therefore, the case remains set for a
pretrial conference on February 27, 2012. At that hearing, the Court will
extend the deadline for submitting jury instructions, set the deadline for
motions in limine, and set a firm trial date.
Defendant has also filed a Motion to Strike Compensatory
Damages, Punitive Damages, Liquidated Damages, and Jury Demand.
Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim is one for retaliation,
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), for which only
equitable relief is an available remedy. Defendant seeks to strike the
request for (1) compensatory and punitive damages, because such
damages are not available for ADA retaliation claims; (2) liquidated
damages, because such damages are a stipulated amount agreed to
between two parties to a contract; and (3) trial by jury because the only
available remedies are equitable.
Section 1981a(a)(2), pertaining to damages in cases of intentional
Page 2 of 6
discrimination in employment, provides as follows:
In an action brought by a complaining party under
the powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in
section 706 or 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
[42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e-5 or 2000e-16] (as
provided in section 107(a) of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12117(a)),
and section 794a(a)(1) of Title 29, respectively)
against a respondent who engaged in unlawful
intentional discrimination (not an employment
practice that is unlawful because of its disparate
impact) under section 791 of Title 29 and the
regulations implementing section 791 of Title 29,
or who violated the requirements of section 791 of
Title 29 or the regulations implementing section
791 of Title 29 concerning the provision of a
reasonable accommodation, or section 102 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12112), or committed a violation of section
102(b)(5) of the Act, against an individual, the
complaining party may recover compensatory and
punitive damages as allowed in subsection (b) of
this section, in addition to any relief authorized by
section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
from the respondent.
42 U.S.C.A. § 1981a(a)(2) (emphasis added). The Seventh Circuit has
held that §1981a(a)(2) does “not contemplate compensatory or punitive
damages for a retaliation claim under the ADA.” Kramer v. Banc of
America Securities, LLC, 355 F.3d 961, 965 (7th Cir. 2004).
Page 3 of 6
Plaintiff brought his claim under § 12112(d)(4) of the ADA, which
prohibits medical examinations and inquiries except under certain
circumstances. The medical examination provisions are contained in §
12112 of the Act, which pertain to discrimination, not § 12203, which
pertains to retaliation. Therefore, this Court disagrees with Defendant’s
characterization of Plaintiff’s claim as one brought for retaliation and
denies the Motion to Strike the request for compensatory and punitive
damages.
Defendant does not address here, or in its motion for summary
judgment, whether Plaintiff can bring his § 12112(d)(4) without
demonstrating that he is a qualified individual with a disability. This
Court did not decide that issue on summary judgment and does not
decide it here. In any event, Defendant seeks to strike the request for
compensatory and punitive damages on the basis that Plaintiff’s claim is
a claim of retaliation. Because Plaintiff’s claim is brought under §
12112(d)(4), the discrimination section of the ADA, Defendant’s request
to strike the request for compensatory and punitive damages is denied.
Page 4 of 6
See, e.g., U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Dillard’s Inc., 2012 WL 440887 at *6 (S.D.
Cal. 2012) (“A prohibited examination or inquiry under subsection
(d)(4) constitutes discrimination under § 12112(a),” for which
compensatory and punitive damages may be awarded). Moreover,
because this Court is not striking Plaintiff’s request for compensatory and
punitive damages, Defendant’s request that the jury demand be stricken
is also denied.
However, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Strike to the
extent it seeks to strike the request for liquidated damages. Such
damages are not available in an ADA case. See Robinson v. Global
Marine Drilling Co., 101 F.3d 35, 36 (5th Cir. 1996) (“Liquidated
damages are not recoverable under the ADA”); Magnussen v. Casey’s
Marketing Co., 787 F. Supp. 2d 929, 939 n. 3 (N.D. Iowa 2011) (same).
II. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, Defendant’s Motion to Stay Trial (d/e 71) is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. At the February 27,
2012 pretrial conference, the Court will extend the deadlines for the
Page 5 of 6
parties to submit jury instructions and for filing motions in limine and
will give the parties a firm trial date. Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Compensatory Damages, Punitive Damages, Liquidated Damages, and
Jury Demand (d/e 72) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The request for liquidated damages is stricken. The request for
compensatory damages and punitive damages remains, as does the jury
demand.
ENTER: February 21, 2012
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 6 of 6
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?