Notaria v. Osco Drug Inc. et al
Filing
98
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 9/1/2011:Mailed notice(srn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
YAMINI NOTARIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
OSCO DRUG, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.
09 C 4475
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In accordance with this Court’s order entered after efforts
toward settlement before Magistrate Judge Susan Cox had been
unsuccessful,1 defendants American Drug Stores, Inc. and American
Drug Stores, LLC (collectively referred to here by their “banner
name” Osco, treated here as a singular noun for convenience) have
filed motions in limine seeking to bar plaintiff Yamini Notaria
(“Notaria”) from introducing at trial:
1.
evidence as to Osco’s position statement submitted
to the EEOC when Notaria’s charges were under consideration
there (Dkt. 91); and
2.
evidence as to Osco’s post-termination
investigation of charges made by Notaria (Dkt. 92).
Counsel for Notaria, whose charges in this action encompass
claimed discrimination and retaliation and the creation of a
1
It was back on October 26, 2010 that this Court entered
the Final Pretrial Order that had been jointly proposed by the
parties, but other events looking toward trial (including motions
in limine) had then been deferred during the course of the
settlement discussions.
hostile work environment, all assertedly attributable to her
Indian national origin, have now filed responsive memoranda
addressing both motions.
To be brief, Notaria has Osco dead to rights on both
motions.
When the irrelevant underbrush of Osco’s arguments is
cleared away, the analysis in Notaria’s responsive memoranda
clearly calls for the admissibility into evidence of both
challenged categories.
This memorandum opinion and order will
not repeat the solid arguments advanced by Notaria, but will
instead be content with brief summaries.
First, as to Osco’s position statement submitted to EEOC,
the caselaw expressly permits such evidence to be considered
because a factfinder can infer pretext from an employer’s
inconsistent statements proffered to justify termination of a now
ex-employee.
Here is what our Court of Appeals said in Appelbaum
v. Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist., 340 F.3d 573, 579 (7th Cir.
2003)(citations of several cases supporting the same proposition
omitted):
One can reasonably infer pretext from an employer’s
shifting or inconsistent explanations for the
challenged employment decision.
That statement was quoted earlier this year in Silverman v. Bd.
of Educ. of City of Chicago, 637 F.3d 729, 737 (7th Cir. 2011) in
the context of considering whether the employer’s EEOC position
statements reflected such inconsistency.
2
Hence Osco’s Dkt. 91
motion is denied.
As for the post-termination investigation conducted by Osco
into Notaria’s charges, Osco’s counsel mischaracterizes both the
nature of the evidence and the caselaw that keeps posttermination evidence out of employment discrimination cases under
totally different circumstances.
Here the post-termination
investigation related to pre-termination events and statements
that bear directly on the bona fides of the asserted grounds for
Notaria’s termination.2
That evidence is surely relevant, and
its probative force is for the factfinding jury to evaluate.
Osco’s Dkt. 92 motion is denied as well.
________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:
September 1, 2011
2
This Court is not of course addressing the merits of
Notaria’s position in that respect--that task will be for the
factfinder to undertake at the time of trial.
3
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?