On March 12, 2001, two African-Americans who were former employees of Groot Industries filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Plaintiffs, ...
read more >
On March 12, 2001, two African-Americans who were former employees of Groot Industries filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for monetary and injunctive relief, alleging racial and national origin harassment and discrimination. Specifically, they alleged that defendants subjected African Americans and Hispanics to inferior terms and conditions of employment due to their race and national origin, and also discriminated against them in connection with promotions, work assignments, compensation, transfers, discipline and terms and conditions of employment.
Following the filing of complaint, plaintiffs moved to add two more Hispanic plaintiffs as class members and class representatives. On August 5, 2002, the Court (Judge Joan B. Gottschall) granted plaintiffs' motion to add Hispanic plaintiffs with respect to the § 1981 claims, but denied their motion to add under the Title VII claim, because the two Hispanic plaintiffs did not file timely charges of discrimination with the EEOC and their claims did not arise out of sufficiently similarly discriminatory treatment as those allegations found in the African American plaintiffs' EEOC charges.
On March 31, 2003, the Court (Judge Joan B. Gottschall) partly granted defendants' motion for summary judgment against the two African-American plaintiffs, because plaintiffs did not show enough evidence with regard to discriminatory discharge and retaliatory discharge.
The case seemed to develop in favor of defendants. On September 2, 2003, the Court (Judge Gottschall) denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification and on the same day, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment against the two Hispanic plaintiffs, because the two plaintiffs did not present enough evidence to support their discriminatory discharge and hostile work environment claims.
In light of this, on September 29, 2004, the parties agreed to a tentative settlement on an individual basis, and the plaintiffs' counsel moved to dismiss the case with leave to reinstate within 60 days. The Court granted plaintiffs' motion.
Kunyi Zhang - 10/30/2010
compress summary
