Glenn v. Terminal Railroad Association of St Louis et al

Filing 72

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, denying 71 Counter MOTION for Bill of Costs filed by Tiffany Glenn. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 8/27/2015. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TIFFANY GLENN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-328-JPG-DGW

TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION
OF ST. LOUIS and TCU LOCAL 574,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the bills of costs filed by defendant Transportation
Communications Union Local 574 (“TCU Local 574”) in the amount of $1,991.75 (Doc. 66) and
defendant Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis (“Terminal Railroad”) in the amount of
$3,151.19 (Doc. 69). Plaintiff Tiffany Glenn has responded by asking the Court to deny an award
of costs on the basis of her indigency even though the defendants prevailed in this case (Doc. 71).
She does not object to the substance of the bills of costs. Neither defendant has responded to
Glenn’s request to deny costs.
Ordinarily, the Court presumes that a prevailing party is entitled to costs as a matter of
course, Krocka v. City of Chicago, 203 F.3d 507, 518 (7th Cir. 2000), but it has the discretion to
deny or reduce costs where warranted, Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437,
441-42 (1987). A reduction or denial of costs may be appropriate, for example, where the losing
party is indigent and her suit is not frivolous. See Rivera v. City of Chi., 469 F.3d 631, 634-35
(7th Cir. 2006) (citing Badillo v. Central Steel & Wire Co., 717 F.2d 1160, 1165 (7th Cir. 1983));
Mother & Father v. Cassidy, 338 F.3d 704, 708 (7th Cir. 2003). In deciding whether to hold an
indigent party liable for costs, the Court should examine the party’s income, assets and expenses

and make a threshold finding whether the losing party is incapable of paying the costs at the
present time or in the future. Rivera, 469 F.3d at 635. The Court should also consider “the
amount of costs, the good faith of the losing party, and the closeness and difficulty of the issues
raised by a case when using its discretion to deny costs.” Id. The exception to the cost-shifting
presumption for indigent losing parties is narrow, and the burden is on the losing party to show she
fits within the exception. Id. at 636. If the Court reduces or denies costs, it must explain its
decision. Krocka, 203 F.3d at 518.
The Court has reviewed Glenn’s evidence of indigency attached to her petition to deny
costs and finds, as a threshold matter, that she is incapable now of paying the $5,142.94 in total
costs sought by the defendants. Although she is currently employed by Terminal Railroad on the
Non-Guarantee Extra Board (“XB”), a sort of “as needed” employment, she has no income
because, as demonstrated in this case, she is not summoned for work on a regular basis and has
essentially no income. Furthermore, she has living costs of approximately $1,500 per month and
debt payments of approximately $260 per month, and has no assets other than a ten-year-old car.
The Court notes, however, that Glenn has a master’s degree in business administration and likely
has prospects of obtaining better employment in the future. She may be able to earn enough
money in the future to pay some costs without undue hardship.
The Court further notes that this action was not frivolous. The evidence revealed
confusing or ambiguous circumstances surrounding her employment. For example, there was
conflicting evidence regarding the date Glenn was placed on the XB and the reason for that
placement, and there was evidence Terminal Railroad did not always follow its own rules or
provide consistent reasons for its actions. The Court believes Glenn’s pursuit of this action was in

2

good faith where irregularities in her employment were present. Furthermore, the issues in this
case were complex, involving civil rights and labor law. Nevertheless, the ultimate result was
clear; Glenn was not entitled to prevail on any of her claims. Accordingly, she should not be
completely relieved of the obligation to pay the defendants’ costs.
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Glenn’s petition to deny costs (Doc. 71) but will
reduce the amount of costs requested to 25% of the bills of cost, resulting in an award of costs in
the amount of $497.94 to TCU Local 574 and $787.80 to Terminal Railroad. The Court further
DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment of costs accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 27, 2015
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

3