Ruffin v. St. Gobain Containers

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM Order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 6/28/2013. Mailed notice(meg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL RUFFIN-EL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ST. GOBAIN CONTAINERS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

13 C 1739

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Michael Ruffin-El (“Ruffin-El”) continues
to have difficulty in coming to grips with one of the objections
interposed by his ex-employer Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc.
(“Saint-Gobain”) to his lawsuit charging it with employment
discrimination.

Ruffin-El has just filed what he captions as his

“2nd Amended Complaint,” in which he continues to stress what he
labels as his Moorish American status, so that he begins his
current Statement of Claim in this fashion:
The Plaintiff affirms he is not from the African
continent, that he and his ancestry are indigenous to
the land of present-day America.
This Court has great respect for, and has no desire to
challenge, Ruffin-El’s beliefs and self-image.

But what he does

not focus on at all is the limited nature of Saint-Gobain’s
objection in that respect--an objection that is graphically
demonstrated by the contrast between his original Complaint and
the Charge of Discrimination that he lodged with EEOC as a
prelude to filing suit:

1.

Complaint ¶9 provides a pro se plaintiff with the

opportunity to check one or more of several boxes to
identify the ground or grounds on which an employer
assertedly discriminated against the plaintiff employee or
ex-employee.

In this instance Ruffin-El checked four such

grounds, including “National Origin” (Complaint ¶9(d)).
2.

But when Ruffin-El had lodged his Charge of

Discrimination (“Charge”) with EEOC back in July 2011, that
form also gave him a choice of a number of possible bases
for the alleged discrimination, again including “NATIONAL
ORIGIN” among them. Ruffin-El left that box blank, instead
placing an “X” only in the boxes labeled “RACE” and
“DISABILITY.”

And those choices, including the omission of

any “national origin” charge, were reconfirmed by the
Charge’s narrative “particulars” that followed the form’s
designation of discrimination categories:
I believe that I was discriminated against because of
my race, Black, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Also I believe I was
discriminated against because of my disability, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, as amended.
In light of those facts, the portion of Saint-Gobain’s
motion to dismiss that targets Ruffin-El’s presently asserted
claim of “national origin” discrimination must be and is granted,
and the unbidden and unauthorized 2nd Amended Complaint is
stricken. In addition, Ruffin El’s ill-considered motion for
2

summary judgment is denied without prejudice.
Because this Court’s June 20 memorandum order had granted
Ruffin-El until July 3 to file a response to the “national
origin” aspect of Saint-Gobain’s motion to dismiss, nothing
further will be required in that respect.

Instead the July 3

status hearing, which had been set to coincide with that due date
for filing, will be used to discuss other aspects of the case.

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

June 28, 2013

3