Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_18-cv-00218/USCOURTS-ared-3_18-cv-00218-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Blackboard Inc
Defendant
Tina McMechen
Plaintiff
Madeleine Watson
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

JONESBORO DIVISION 

TINA McMECHEN and MADELEINE 

WATSON, Individually and on Behalf 

of all Similarly Situated Employees 

v. No. 3:18-cv-218-DPM 

PLAINTIFFS 

BLACKBOARD INC. DEFENDANT 

ORDER 

The Court notes the parties' Rule 26(f) report, NQ 7. It's both 

helpful and confusing. While the parties' proposed changes to the draft 

Final Scheduling Order attempt to deal with the many ways this case 

could develop, the Court prefers more clarity at the threshold. The 

Court tried to schedule a telephone conference with counsel 

(admittedly on short notice) to talk through the issues, but most of the 

lawyers were unavailable. The Court would therefore appreciate 

answers to the following questions: 

1. Do McMechen and Watson intend to pursue conditional 

certification of a collective action or not? The Court doesn't understand 

how this issue will get any clearer with the passage of time and the 

plaintiffs-only discovery proposed. 

2. Do McMechen and Watson's Equal Pay Act claims duplicate 

their Title VII sex-based compensation discrimination claims? 

Case 3:18-cv-00218-DPM Document 10 Filed 03/28/19 Page 1 of 3
3. Why did McMechen and Watson file this case before their 

discrimination charges were addressed by the EEOC? 

4. If the answer to No. 3 is "to address a limitations concern," 

then why not equitably toll the bar and put this case on hold for a few 

months until there's clarity about the other claims? Going forward now 

seems like a recipe for duplicating effort. 

5. Do the parties intend to engage meaningfully in the EEOC 

process, including mediation? 

6. If the EEOC charges are mostly (or only) to exhaust 

administrative remedies before the main event of litigation, then why 

don't McMechen and Watson request their right to sue letters, and 

propose broader claims, now? 

The Court is concerned, in summary, about the complexity and 

uncertainty in what the parties have proposed. Please file a joint report 

addressing the Court's questions, and making any other clarifications, 

by 5 April 2019. 

The Court also offers some first thoughts on a few other proposals 

in the report. The agreement of counsel is important; but the Court 

must make an independent judgment on proposed amended pleadings 

and other matters. We'll have a trial date and schedule that provides 

ample time for the Court to rule on motions before trial; but the Court 

cannot commit to pretrial rulings by a date certain. The trial can be later 

-2-

Case 3:18-cv-00218-DPM Document 10 Filed 03/28/19 Page 2 of 3
in 2020, probably June, to provide more flexibility in the schedule. Last, 

all the experts must produce their reports before any expert is deposed. 

* * 

Joint report due by 5 April 2019. 

So Ordered. 

-3-

* 

(/ 

D.P. Marshall Jr. 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-00218-DPM Document 10 Filed 03/28/19 Page 3 of 3