BENTON v. FISHERS LIBRARY

Filing 13

ORDER: CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED AS AMENDED. Discovery due by 4/20/2011. Dispositive Motions due by 6/20/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 9/28/2010. (TMA)

Case 1:10-cv-00918-LJM-DML Document 12

Filed 09/28/10 Page 1 of 7

Plaintiff, a current employee of Defendant, claims that Defendant violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff alleges she was retaliated against by her former employer, Defendant, on the basis of her previously-filed discrimination charge. Plaintiff also alleges she was discriminated against on the basis of her race from the time she was hired. Plaintiff alleges she was harassed and picked on because of her status as a member of a protected class. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges she was constantly yelled at behind closed doors by her manager and another employee of Defendant. Plaintiff indicates she told her supervisor that she would going to report the harassment and then sought treatment from a doctor. Plaintiff seeks $100,000 as recovery from Defendant for the alleged retaliation. B. Defendant's Synopsis:

The allegations in the Complaint, as the Defendant understands them, are based on circumstances that developed as a result of poor job performance and disciplinary issues pertaining to Plaintiff. Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant in January, 2007. Since that time, Plaintiff has received warnings, both written and verbal, about her inappropriate behavior and poor job performance. Plaintiff has also failed to follow Defendant's policies regarding: the employee handbook; in-service training; timely arrivals to, and departures from, work; employee entrance/exit procedures; employee internet usage; and employee identification. The Defendant denies that Plaintiff was subjected to harassment based on her status as a member of a protected class. Plaintiff has been provided opportunities to improve her job performance through Defendant and had recently shown improvement. However, due to further incidents of violating the Defendant's employee policies and procedures, Plaintiff was later discharged from her duties under Defendant's employ.

III. A. B. C. D.

Pretrial Pleadings and Disclosures The parties shall serve their Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 initial disclosures on or before November 20, 2010. Plaintiff shall file preliminary witness and exhibit lists on or before December 20, 2010. Defendant shall file preliminary witness and exhibit lists on or before January 20, 2010. All motions for leave to amend the pleadings and/or to join additional parties shall be filed on or before December 20, 2010.

2

Case 1:10-cv-00918-LJM-DML Document 12

Filed 09/28/10 Page 3 of 7

A.

The Defendant anticipates dispositive motions will be appropriate for all of the claims for relief in the Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff's Complaint does not meet the criteria for racial discrimination. First, Plaintiff was not harassed based on her status as a member of a protected class. Second, any alleged harassment was not "severe and pervasive." Third, the Defendant appropriately responded to any concerns regarding Plaintiff's disciplinary issues and poor job performance as well as any concerns regarding Plaintiff's perceived harassment. Select the track that best suits this case:

B.

Track 2: Dispositive motions are expected and shall be filed by June 20, 2011; non-expert witness discovery and discovery relating to liability issues shall be completed by April 20, 2011; expert witness discovery and discovery relating to damages shall be completed by October 20, 2011.

V.

Pre-Trial/Settlement Conferences
The parties have been ordered to attend an initial pretrial conference on September 28, 2010 and will comply with that order.

VI.

Trial Date The Defendant does not believe it is necessary to set a trial date at this time as they anticipate the case will be decided on dispositive motions. In the event. the case is not decided on dispositive motions, the Defendant requests a trial date in February 2012. The trial is by Court and Defendant anticipates it will take one (1) day. Plaintiff estimates that 3 days will be required for trial.

VII.

Referral to Magistrate Judge
At this time, the Plaintiff and Defendant do consent to refer this matter to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 for all further proceedings including trial.

VIII. Required Pre-Trial Preparation
A. TWO WEEKS BEFORE TILE FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, the parties shall: 1. trial. File a list of witnesses who are expected to be called to testify at

2. Number in sequential order all exhibits, including graphs, charts and the like, that will be used during the trial. Provide the Court with a list

4

Case 1:10-cv-00918-LJM-DML Document 12

Filed 09/28/10 Page 5 of 7

Case 1:10-cv-00918-LJM-DML Document 12

Filed 09/28/10 Page 6 of 7

X X X

PARTIES APPEARED BY COUNSEL ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2010, FOR AN INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. APPROVED AS SUBMITTED, APPROVED AS AMENDED. APPROVED AS AMENDED PER SEPARATE ORDER. APPROVED, BUT ALL OF THE FOREGOING DEADLINES ARE SHORTENED/LENGTHENED BY MONTHS. APPROVED, BUT THE DEADLINES SET IN SECTION(S) _______________OF THE PLAN IS/ARE SHORTENED/LENGTHENED BY MONTHS. THIS MATTER IS SET FOR TRIAL BY ____________________ ON __________________________ . FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR AT __________ .M., ROOM . A SETTLEMENT/STATUS CONFERENCE IS SET IN THIS CASE FOR _____________ AT ________ .M. COUNSEL SHALL APPEAR: _____________IN PERSON IN ROOM _______ ; OR ____________ BY TELEPHONE, WITH COUNSEL FOR INITIATING THE CALL TO ALL OTHER PARTIES AND ADDING THE COURT JUDGE AT ( ___ ) __________________ ; OR ____________ BY TELEPHONE, WITH COUNSEL CALLING THE JUDGE'S STAFF AT ( ____ ) _________________ ; OR

X X

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL BE FILED BY JUNE 20, 2011. NON-EXPERT WITNESS AND LIABILITY DISCOVERY SHALL BE COMPLETED BY APRIL 20, 2011.

7

If the required conference under LR 37.1 does not resolve discovery issues that may arise, and if the dispute does not involve a claim of privilege, the parties are ordered jointly to request a phone status conference before filing any motion to compel or for protective order. If the dispute has arisen because a party has failed to timely respond to discovery, the party that served the discovery may proceed with a motion to compel without seeking a conference. Any contacts with the court to request a discovery conference must be made jointly by counsel, absent compelling circumstances. When filing a non-dispositive motion, the movant shall contact counsel for the opposing party and solicit opposing counsel's agreement to the motion. The movant shall indicate opposing counsel's consent or objection in the motion. Upon approval, this Plan constitutes an Order of the Court. Failure to comply with an Order of the Court may result in sanctions for contempt, or as provided under Rule 16(f), to and including dismissal or default. Approved and So Ordered. 09/28/2010 ________________________ Date

____________________________________ Debra McVicker Lynch United States Magistrate Judge Southern District of Indiana

Distribution: Joel Samuel Paul RAMEY & HAILEY [e-mail] Jennifer Lee Williams CHURCH CHURCH HITTLE & ANTRIM [e-mail]

8