Wojcik v. Crown Castle USA, Inc.
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM Order: For the reasons stated in this memorandum order, defendant's Affirmative Defense 1 is stricken as insufficient in law, while Complaint paragraph 10 remains in Wojcik's pleading. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 1/9/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
TERESA WOJCIK,
Plaintiff,
v.
CROWN CASTLE USA, INC.,
a Pennsylvania Corporation,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 16 C 10452
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Crown Castle USA, Inc. ("Crown Castle") has just filed its Answer and Affirmative
Defenses ("ADs") to the Title VII action brought against it by its ex-employee Teresa Wojcik
("Wojcik"). This brief memorandum order is issued sua sponte to address this AD 1 advanced
by Crown Castle:
To the extent that Count I complains of discrete acts of gender discrimination
occurring outside the 180-day charge filing period for filing a Title VII claim,
such acts are untimely and not actionable.
That AD obviously targets Complaint ¶ 10, which narrates a course of disparate treatment
to which Wojcik was assertedly subjected throughout her employment with Crown Castle
(Complaint ¶ 8, which has been admitted by Crown Castle, alleges that Wojcik "was the only
female construction manager when she was hired and throughout her employment"). What AD 1
fails to recognize is that discriminatory acts that are not separately actionable because they are
outside the statutory period for filing a Title VII claim are still appropriate for a plaintiff's
pleading because they may be relevant for evidentiary purposes (for example, by being probative
as to a discriminatory mindset on the part of an employer). Hence AD 1 is stricken as
insufficient in law, while Complaint ¶ 10 remains in Wojcik's pleading.
__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: January 9, 2017
-2-
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?