IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISON

FASCIA EDWARDS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) No. 12 C 371

v. ) Hon. Marvin Aspen

)

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS, et al. )

)

Defendants. )

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9

TO LIMIT THE ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION TO “FAILURE/REFUSAL TO 

BRING PLAINTIFF BACK TO WORK”, TO BAR THE CHARACTERIZATION AS

THE “FAILURE/REFUSAL TO REHIRE” AND TO BAR ALL CLAIMS UNDER AND 

ANY REFERENCE TO DUPLICATIVE THEORIES OF RETALIATION

Defendant, by and through its attorney, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General for Illinois, 

hereby moves this Honorable Court to enter the following order in limine:

1. In ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court found that 

Plaintiff could proceed on her claim of retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Mem. Op. & Order at 22-24 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 22, 2016) (ECF No. 197). 

2. The Court found that the adverse action was the “refusal to rehire Plaintiff.” (Id.

at 23). Thus, Defendant respectfully moves this Court to bar any evidence of, reference to, or 

argument that Plaintiff has suffered any adverse action other than the alleged refusal to bring her 

back to work.

3. Additionally, Defendant asks the Court to bar the characterization of the 

Plaintiff’s adverse action as “a failure/refusal to rehire” because the Plaintiff has been 

continuously employed by the Defendant on an approved, extended leave of absence.

Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 214 Filed: 03/16/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:2815
4. Finally, Plaintiff claims that the accommodation she requested was to return to 

her position with Defendant. See Fourth Am. Compl. ¶ 25(ECF No. 44) (alleging that the only 

retaliatory act was the failure/refusal to reinstate or recall Plaintiff back to work). Plaintiff 

should be barred from claiming both that Defendant “failed to accommodate her” and “failed to 

return her to work.” Making these duplicative retaliation claims would operate to mislead the 

jury, confuse the issues, be cumulative, and be prejudicial to Defendant. See Fed. R. Evid. 403.

5. Accordingly, Defendant moves this Court to bar Plaintiff from asserting

duplicative claims or theories of retaliation and limit Plaintiff to seeking relief for the alleged 

failure/refusal to bring Plaintiff back to work under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. 

WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this Honorable Court enter an Order excluding 

evidence, testimony, or argument that Plaintiff was retaliated against in two separate ways, bar 

Plaintiff from asserting duplicative claims or theories of retaliation, bar Plaintiff from 

characterizing the adverse employment action as “a failure/refusal to rehire,” and limit Plaintiff

to seeking relief for the alleged failure/refusal to bring Plaintiff back to work, and for such 

further relief that the Court finds reasonable and just.

Respectfully Submitted,

LISA MADIGAN s/ Kevin Lovellette

Illinois Attorney General Kevin Lovellette

Assistant Attorney General

General Law Bureau

100 W. Randolph Street, 13th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312) 814-3720

Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 214 Filed: 03/16/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2816
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on March 16, 2017, he electronically filed the foregoing

document with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois using the CM/ECF system. All participants in the case are registered CM/ECF 

users who will be served by the CM/ECF system.

s/ Kevin Lovellette

Case: 1:12-cv-00371 Document #: 214 Filed: 03/16/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:2817