Rector v. Parrish Steckenrider et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, denying 15 MOTION to Strike 9 Answer to Complaint Defendant's Affirmative Defenses filed by Angel Rector,and 16 MOTION to Strike 11 Answer to Complaint Defendant's Affirmative Defenses filed by Angel Rector.Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 12/16/2014. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANGEL RECTOR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 14-cv-878-JPG-PMF

ANITRA PARRISH STECKENRIDER,
individually and in her official capacity, and
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Angel Rector’s motion to strike the
affirmative defenses pled by defendants Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”) (Doc. 16) and
Anitra Parrish Steckenrider (Doc. 15). The defendants have filed a consolidated response to the
motions to strike (Doc. 19).
In this case, Rector, a Wexford employee, claims she was subject to sexual harassment by
Steckenrider and another Wexford employee and that she suffered retaliation when she complained
about that harassment. She has sued Wexford for sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Count I) and the Illinois Human Rights Act
(“IHRA”), 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (Count II), for retaliation in violation of the IHRA (Count III)
and for negligent hiring, supervision, retention and control of her alleged harassers (Count IV).
She has also sued Steckenrider for sexual harassment (Count V) and retaliation (Count IV) in
violation of the IHRA. The Court has dismissed Counts III, IV and VI without prejudice and with
leave to replead Counts III and VI.
Rector asks the Court to strike the defendants’ numerous affirmative defenses because they
do not contain sufficient factual detail to suggest they are plausible defenses, are not bona fide

affirmative defenses but instead denials of elements of Rector’s causes of action, or are immaterial
to Rector’s claims.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) governs whether to strike matters from a pleading.
Under Rule 12(f), upon a motion or upon its own initiative, “[t]he court may strike from a pleading
an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” The
purpose of the rule is to prevent unnecessary expenditures of time and money litigating spurious
issues. Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010). Motions to
strike are generally disfavored because they are often employed for the sole purpose of causing
delay. See Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989). For
this reason, this Court and others have held that a party must show prejudice to succeed on a
motion to strike. See, e.g., Anderson v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi., 169 F. Supp. 2d 864, 867 (N.D. Ill.
2001); see also Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distrib. Co., 961 F.2d 654, 664 (7th Cir. 1992). The
Court should not strike matter from a pleading pursuant to Rule 12(f) “unless the challenged
allegations have no possible relation or logical connection to the subject matter of the controversy
and may cause some form of significant prejudice to one or more of the parties to the action.” 5C
Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1382 (3d ed.); accord
Anderson, 169 F. Supp. 2d at 867-68. The burden on a motion to strike is upon the moving party.
See Vakharia v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp. & Health Care Ctrs., 2 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
The Court has reviewed the defendants’ affirmative defenses and finds that some of them
suffer from the flaws claimed by Rector. However, Rector has not shown she will suffer prejudice
if the affirmative defenses remain in the pleadings. All of the affirmative defenses rely on issues
that are already in the case such as, for example, the lack of causation, the lack of severe or

2

pervasive offensive conduct, or the propriety of punitive damages. Thus, allowing these issues to
remain pled as affirmative defenses will not cause the parties to unnecessarily expend time or
money litigating spurious issues.
For these reasons, the Court DENIES Rectors’ motions to strike (Docs. 15 & 16).
However, the Court notes that Rector may soon file an amended complaint, as she has been given
permission to do by separate order. To simplify the pleadings, the Court strongly encourages the
defendants to be more discriminating in pleading its affirmative defenses to any amended
complaint by omitting defenses that are not truly affirmative defenses.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 16, 2014
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
U.S. District Judge

3