Younger et al v. Ingersoll-Rand Company et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying without prejudice to refiling 34 Motion to Sever Plaintiff's claims. To the extent that one or more of both plaintiff's claims survive summary judgment defendant may file a renewed motion to sever for the purpose of trial. Signed by Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott. (wam1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Anthony Younger, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Ingersoll-Rand Company, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 1:10-cv-849
Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO SEVER PLAINTIFFS’
CLAIMS

Presently before the Court is Defendant Ingersoll-Rand Company’s Motion to Sever
Plaintiffs’ Claims. (Doc. 34.) In their Complaint, Plaintiffs Anthony Younger, an AfricanAmerican male, and Lee Gillett, a Jewish Caucasian male, allege state law claims of employment
discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Defendants
Ingersoll-Rand and three unnamed John Does. (Doc. 2.) Plaintiff Younger additionally raises
claims of discrimination and retaliation under federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964). (Id.) With those claims, Plaintiffs allege that while employed with Ingersoll-Rand, the
Defendant company and several of Plaintiffs’ supervisors engaged in and condoned a pattern and
practice of discrimination against African-American and Jewish employees. Defendant
Ingersoll-Rand argues that Plaintiffs’s claims were improperly joined because Plaintiffs allege
discrimination on different grounds, at varying times, and through different adverse employment
actions. Accordingly, Defendant requests that the Court sever this lawsuit into two separate
actions, one involving Younger’s claims and the other involving Gillett’s claims. Plaintiffs have
not responded to Defendant’s motion, and the deadline for doing so has long since passed.
Accordingly, the Court assumes Plaintiffs do not object to Defendant’s motion.
Nonetheless, the Court declines to grant Defendant’s motion at this time. The discovery

deadline in this case has passed and the summary judgment deadline is fast approaching. The
Court believes it prudent to reserve judgment on the issue of severance until the record is more
fully developed. Furthermore, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court finds it most
efficient to address Plaintiffs’ claims jointly during the summary judgment stage. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant’s Motion to Sever Plaintiffs’ Claims.
To the extent that one or more of both Plaintiffs’ claims survive summary judgment, Defendant
may file a renewed motion to sever for the purpose of trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___s/Susan J. Dlott___________
Chief Judge Susan J. Dlott
United States District Court