Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-5_04-cv-00369/USCOURTS-ared-5_04-cv-00369-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

PINE BLUFF DIVISION

RODNEY LAGRONE PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 5:04CV00369GH

STANT MANUFACTURING, INC. DEFENDANT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Plaintiff

requests that defendant produce a copy of the Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) in effect

in 2004 and a copy of its current balance sheet showing its net worth. Defendant

objects to producing the AAP and to producing a balance sheet for other than

defendant’s Pine Bluff location.

With regard to the AAP, defendant argues that it is not relevant and falls

within the self-critical analysis privilege. Affirmative action plans are relevant when

racial discrimination in a promotion decision is claimed. See Gatewood v. Stone

Container Corp., 170 F. R D. 455, 459 (S. D. Iowa 1996) 

There is no strong precedent in the courts in the Eighth Circuit for application

of the self-critical analysis privilege. Judge Bennett, then sitting as a Magistrate

Judge, found that the self-critical analysis privilege did not apply in the employment

discrimination context so as to shield from disclosure those documents prepared by the

employer in compliance with federal equal employment opportunity laws. Tharp v.

Sivyer Steel Corp., 149 F. R. D. 177 (S. D. Iowa 1993). Magistrate Judge Walters

refused to take a categorical approach in Gatewood, instead balancing the interests

of a litigant’s right to discover relevant information versus the harm which might

result from disclosure. In that case, the court offered to review in camera the items

claimed by defendant to be a self-critical analysis or evaluation in which the public

interest would be harmed by disclosure. 170 F.R.D. at 459. 

Judge Gaitan in West v. Marion Laboratories, Inc., 1991 WL 51730 (W. D. Mo.

Case 5:04-cv-00369-SWW Document 25 Filed 09/23/05 Page 1 of 5
-2-

1991) noted that a number of courts have held affirmative action plans discoverable

and he granted plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of the AAP. See also Capellupo

v. FMC Corp., 1988 WL 41398 (D. Minn. 1988) (self-critical analysis privilege rejected

and defendant ordered to produce affirmative action plans). 

In a case brought by policyholders against an insurance company and agent for

fraud, Magistrate Judge Jarvey found that a report prepared to help manage risk

within the defendant’s organization and to find weaknesses in its internal workings

was not subject to a “self-critical analysis privilege.” LeClere v. Mut. Trust Life Ins.

Co., 2000 WL 34027973 (N.D. Iowa 2000). The court noted that the Eighth Circuit had

not directly addressed the self-critical analysis privilege and surmised that the Eighth

Circuit would not ultimately recognize such a privilege. Id. at *3. 

It appears that the trend is toward not recognizing a self-critical analysis

privilege, particularly in the employment discrimination context. The information is

relevant . The Court has weighed the factors and is not persuaded that factors in favor

of nondisclosure outweigh the factors favoring disclosure. In particular, the Court

agrees with the court’s reasoning in Tharp as to why the self-critical analysis privilege

should not be recognized in the field of employment discrimination litigation. 

First, the court doubts that permitting plaintiffs in employment

discrimination actions from discovering such reports as affirmative action

plans or other equal employment compliance documents will have a

"chilling" affect upon employers' self-evaluations or discourage employers

from frank reflection in those reports required by the federal government.

. . . Second, the court looks to the importance private civil litigation plays

as the catalyst for change and enforcement in the area of equal

employment opportunity, and the need for discovery of such materials if

that litigation is to achieve its purpose.

149 F. R .D. at 182 (citations omitted). 

Thus, the Court finds that defendant should produce the AAP in effect in 2004.

With regard to the balance sheet/financial information defendant argues that

it is not a single entity, but has facilities around the world that operate as separate

legal entities. It has attached a copy of the Annual Review for the corporation, which

Case 5:04-cv-00369-SWW Document 25 Filed 09/23/05 Page 2 of 5
-3-

contains an overview of defendant’s corporate-wide financial goals and status.

Defendant has agreed to provide the balance sheet and financial documents of the Pine

Bluff location. 

The Court is persuaded that the information concerning the Pine Bluff location

along with the information contained in the Annual Review are sufficient for a jury

to determine an award of punitive damages. Furthermore, should plaintiff establish

at trial a basis for obtaining additional corporate financial information, he can renew

his request.

Also pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend his

complaint. Plaintiff seeks to add a failure to promote claim with regard to vacancies

in November 2003 and in July 2004. He also seeks to add a retaliation claim for

defendant’s action on August 25, 2005 in terminating plaintiff and then later recalling

him to work. 

Defendant objects, stating that plaintiff’s retaliation claim fails as a matter of

law because he has failed to allege that he has suffered an adverse employment action.

According to defendant, plaintiff did not suffer any wage loss. Plaintiff has not

disputed this. Defendant also contends that it would be unduly prejudiced by the

addition of new promotion claims. 

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on October 18, 2004, alleged race discrimination with

regard to a June 2004 promotion. On December 23, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion for

leave to amend his complaint, adding a retaliation claim alleging that defendant had

assigned attendance demerits to plaintiff’s record, refused to pay him for an excused

leave, assigned him twice as much work as others in his department and assigned him

to work full time on two machines which exposed him to a safety hazard. Defendant

did not object to the request to amend and the Court entered an Order granting

plaintiff’‘s motion on January 19, 2005. 

The Court issued its final scheduling order on February 23, 2005, setting a

Case 5:04-cv-00369-SWW Document 25 Filed 09/23/05 Page 3 of 5
-4-

discovery deadline of July 8, 2005, and the jury trial for the week of February 6, 2006.

Defendant states that the parties have conducted extensive discovery, including taking

the depositions of plaintiff, as well as current and former employees. Defendant argues

that to add new issues at this late date will require defendant to engage in additional

discovery. 

Plaintiff has not indicated why he did not raise the November 2003 promotion

claims until this late date. It is clear that he knew of the vacancies and had even

applied for a position as Maintenance Technician Nevertheless, while the deadline

for discovery has passed, the deadline for amending pleadings has not. The Court is not

persuaded that defendant will be unduly prejudiced by granting plaintiff leave to

amend his complaint to allege discrimination with regard to the earlier vacancies. 

Defendant states that a number of witnesses have already been questioned about the

earlier vacancies. Furthermore, the Court will extend the discovery deadline to

November 14, 2005, to allow the parties to conduct additional discovery on the new

claim. 

With regard to plaintiff’s retaliation claim, plaintiff has failed to identify an

adverse action. “An adverse employment action is a tangible change in working

conditions that produces a material employment disadvantage. Sallis v. Univ. of

Minnesota, 408 F. 3d 470, 476 (8th Cir. 2005). See Ledergerber v. Strangler, 122 F. 3d

1142, 1144-45 (8th Cir. 1997) (no adverse employment action where employee

experienced no change in salary benefits or responsibilities). 

Accordingly, the motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part. The

motion for leave to amend/correct is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff shall

file his amended complaint in accordance with this Order within five days of the entry

of this Order. 

Case 5:04-cv-00369-SWW Document 25 Filed 09/23/05 Page 4 of 5
-5-

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of September, 2005.

 ________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-00369-SWW Document 25 Filed 09/23/05 Page 5 of 5