Brown v. The Sherwin-Williams Co.

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 5/4/2012:Mailed notice(srn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CHESTER M. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

12 C 2822

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Chester Brown (“Brown”) has filed a Complaint of Employment
Discrimination against his ex-employer Sherwin-Williams Company
(“Sherwin-Williams”), utilizing the form of Complaint provided by
the Clerk’s Office for use by pro se plaintiffs, with the form
having been completed through hand-printing and an appropriate
marking of boxes included in the form.

This sua sponte

memorandum order is issued because Brown’s filled-in information
has most likely pleaded him out of court, although no actual sua
sponte dismissal order is appropriate.
Complaint ¶9(b) confirms that Brown received his right-tosue letter from EEOC on January 17, 2012, and he filed this
lawsuit on April 17.

But the right-to-sue letter states--indeed,

emphasizes--that suit must be filed within 90 days (not within
three months) after its receipt by the prospective plaintiff, and
April 17 is the 91st day after January 17.

And the caselaw

consistently holds (just as with other bright-line statutory
limitations provisions) that a single day is enough to make the

action untimely.
It is true that the time prescription is not jurisdictional,
so that it could be waived by defendant Sherwin-Williams,
although such waivers are rare.

Accordingly this Court will not

dismiss this action at this time--it will instead transmit copies
of the Complaint and this memorandum order to Sherwin-Williams at
the address Brown has listed in the Complaint and will await its
response.1

For that purpose a status hearing is set for 9 a.m.

May 25, 2012, at which time Brown and a Sherwin-Williams lawyer
are expected to be present.

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

May 4, 2012

1

In the meantime, any ruling on Brown’s accompanying In
Forma Pauperis Application and Motion for Appointment of Counsel
will be deferred (though the latter is inadequate in any event
because of its failure to specify what efforts he has made to
retain counsel on his own).
2