Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Comprehensive Behavioral Health Center of St. Clair County, Inc.

Filing 9

ORDER GRANTING 4 Third Party MOTION to Intervene filed by Pamela Perry, and ORDERING that Pamela Perry be added as plaintiff/intervenor. Pamela Perry SHALL file her complaint on or before 1/11/2013. Signed by Judge William D. Stiehl on 12/28/2012. (jst)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMPREHENSIVE BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH CENTER OF ST. CLAIR
COUNTY, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 12-CV-1031-WDS

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
STIEHL, District Judge:
Before the Court is a motion to intervene (Doc. 4) filed by proposed intervenor/plaintiff,
Pamela Perry (“Perry”), to which the defendant has not filed a response.
BACKGROUND
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed this action on
September 26, 2012, alleging unlawful employment practices by Comprehensive Behavioral
Health Center of St. Clair County, Inc., based on disability discrimination against Perry. The
EEOC brought this action as a result of charges filed with the EEOC by Perry alleging violations
of Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). In her proposed
complaint (Doc. 4-1) Perry asserts that the EEOC initiated this action after an unsuccessful attempt
at conciliation. Perry now seeks to intervene in this lawsuit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 and 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a):
On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an

unconditional right to intervene by a federal statute; or (2) claims an interest
relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so
situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the
movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent
that interest.
“The Civil Rights Act is one of the statutes that provides an unconditional right to intervene under
Rule 24(a)(1).” EEOC v. J.D. Streett & Co., Inc., No. 05 CV 4186, 2006 WL 839444, at *1 (S.D.
Ill. March 29, 2006). Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), “[t]he person or persons aggrieved shall
have the right to intervene in a civil action brought by the Commission . . . .”
ANALYSIS
Perry claims that she is the victim of disability discrimination on whose behalf the EEOC
brought the current action. Perry also claims that her right not to be subjected to discrimination in
violation of the ADA is the same transaction upon which the EEOC brought this civil action, that
her ability to protect her rights may be impaired or impeded by the disposition of this action, and
that her interests are not adequately represented by the EEOC. Finally, Perry claims that her
motion is timely filed and her intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of
defendant’s rights. Defendant did not object to her intervention, implicitly admitting that Perry
may rightfully intervene. See J.D. Streett & Co., Inc., 2006 WL 839444, at *1.
The Court FINDS that Perry has an unconditional right to intervene under Rule 24(b) and
§ 2000e-5(f)(1); she is an aggrieved party because she filed the charges that resulted in this cause
of action. See id. The Court FURTHER FINDS that Perry’s ability to protect her rights may be
impaired by the disposition of this action if she is not allowed to intervene, that her interest is not
adequately represented by the EEOC, and that her intervention will not unduly delay or prejudice
the adjudication of defendant’s rights.

2

CONCLUSION
The Court, therefore, GRANTS Perry’s motion to intervene (Doc. 4), and ORDERS that
Perry be added as plaintiff/intervenor in this litigation. Perry SHALL file her complaint on or
before January 11, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: December 28, 2012
/s/ WILLIAM D. STIEHL
DISTRICT JUDGE

3