Yost v. Chicago Park District et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 2/16/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
EMERY J. YOST,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

12 C 1074

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Emery Yost (“Yost”) has just sued the City of Chicago and
its Park District, asserting federal claims of asserted
employment discrimination and related state law claims.

This

memorandum order is issued sua sponte because of one problematic
aspect of Yost’s Complaint.
Complaint ¶12 and EEOC’s right-to-sue letter (attached as
part of Complaint Ex. 1) both reflect a November 14, 2011
issuance and mailing date, and the letter (as always) sets out
the statutory requirement that suit must be filed within 90 days
of Yost’s receipt of the notice.1

But Yost’s lawyer did not file

the Complaint until February 14, 2012--92 days after the letter’s
issuance.
Because it would seem likely that Yost’s receipt (the
controlling fact) was indeed within the relevant 90-day time

1

Indeed, the “WITHIN 90 DAYS” requirement is emphasized in
three ways--it is in boldface type, it is underlined and both
words (as indicated in this footnote) are printed entirely in
capital letters.

frame, this Court is contemporaneously issuing its customary
order setting a status hearing date and prescribing the
litigants’ responsibilities before that status date.

But in the

meantime Yost’s counsel is ordered to file an amendment to
Complaint ¶12 (not a full-blown Amended Complaint) on or before
February 27, 2012 specifying Yost’s date of receipt of the EEOC
letter.

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date:

February 16, 2012

2