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, )

Download PDF
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?