United States of America v. Robertson Fire Protection District

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant Steve Wilson's motion to intervene [# 4 ] is GRANTED. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on September 4, 2012. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROBERTSON FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12CV1232 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action was commenced on July 11, 2012, when plaintiff United States
of America filed its complaint against defendant Robertson Fire Protection
District, alleging that Robertson violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., by unlawfully retaliating against its
employee, Steve Wilson, after he refused to participate in discrimination against
two African-American employees and provided testimony about that matter in a
deposition. On August 7, 2012, Wilson filed his motion to intervene as a matter of
right in this action, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-5(f)(1).
Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), an aggrieved employee has an absolute
right to intervene in a civil action brought by the EEOC.1 42 U.S.C. § 2000e1

This action was filed on behalf of the United States by the Department of Justice, “which
shares responsibility for federal enforcement of Title VII with the [EEOC].” Connecticut v. Teal,

5(f)(1); see EEOC v. Woodmen of World Life Ins. Soc., 479 F.3d 561, 569 (8th Cir.
2007). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(1), “on timely motion, the
court must permit anyone to intervene who . . . is given an unconditional right to
intervene by a federal statute.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1). In order for the motion to
be timely, the court should consider factors such as “how far the proceedings have
gone when the movant seeks to intervene, prejudice which resultant delay might
cause to other parties, and the reason for the delay.” Nevilles v. EEOC, 511 F.2d
303, 305 (8th Cir. 1975) (internal citations omitted).
I conclude that Wilson’s motion is timely. He filed it less than one month
after the United States filed its complaint in this court, and an answer has not yet
been filed by Robertson. Intervention at this time will not prejudice any of the
parties. I will therefore grant Wilson’s motion to intervene, and he shall be
permitted to file his complaint.2
Accordingly,

457 U.S. 440, 451 n.11 (1982).
2

Attached to this motion to intervene, Wilson also filed a motion to join Chief David
Tilley as a defendant in this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20. Tilley is listed as a
defendant in Wilson’s intervenor complaint, which alleges claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981. Wilson’s complaint, which will be filed because I have granted his motion to intervene,
already joins Chief David Tilley as a defendant, so I need not separately issue an order joining
him as a defendant to this case.
-2-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that movant Steve Wilson’s motion to
intervene [#4] is GRANTED.

___________________________________
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 4th day of September, 2012.

-3-