UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

LATANYA RODGERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 2:12-CV-530 JD

)

GARY COMMUNITY SCHOOL )

CORPORATION, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

On December 21, 2012, Plaintiff Latanya Rodgers filed a lawsuit against her employer,

the Gary Community School Corporation (“GCSC”), where she has served as a custodian since

1995. In September 2011, Rodgers was sexually assaulted by a co-worker who grabbed and

kissed her before she was able to escape, and Rodgers claims she suffers from post-traumatic

stress disorder as a result of the attack at work. On March 1, 2016, the Court granted summary

judgment in part by dismissing Rogers’ claims for retaliatory harassment and discrimination in

violation of Title VII and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but denied summary

judgment with respect to Rodgers’ ADA reasonable accommodation claim. A jury trial was then

scheduled for August 22, 2016, and at the request of both counsel, the case was referred to

Magistrate Judge Andrew P. Rodovich to conduct a settlement conference. 

On May 4, 2016, the parties participated in a settlement conference wherein it was

reported that a settlement was reached. As a result, the jury trial and final pretrial conference

were vacated, and a deadline was set for the submission of the parties’ dismissal papers. Almost

two months after the settlement conference, counsel for GCSC filed a notice indicating that she
ultimately did not have authority to settle the case, and thus, she requested that the case be set for

trial [DE 56]. However, plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to enforce the settlement and sought

Rule 11 sanctions against the defense for the amount expended in maintaining the proceeding

alleging that the negotiations were conducted in bad faith [DE 58, 60, 61]. Defense counsel

responded [DE 62] and the matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Rodovich [DE 59] to issue a

Report and Recommendation. That Report and Recommendation has issued [DE 63] and

indicates that the motion should be denied because defense counsel acted in good faith to settle

the current dispute contingent upon the Board of School Trustees’ approval, and that plaintiff

knew that the dispute could not be settled without board approval during an executive session of

the school board [DE 63]. As of this date, no party has filed an objection to the report and

recommendation.

The Court’s review of a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation is governed by

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides in part:

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is

made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also

receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with

instructions.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) also directs that the Court must only make a de novo determination of those

portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to which specific written

objection has been made. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). If no

objection or only a partial objection is made, the Court reviews those unobjected portions for

clear error. Id. In addition, failure to file objections with the district court “waives appellate

review of both factual and legal questions.” Id. Under the clear error standard, the Court can

2
only overturn a Magistrate Judge’s ruling if the Court is left with “the definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been made.” Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d

926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997). 

The Magistrate Judge set forth the facts revealing that correspondence between counsel

for plaintiff and defendant made clear that the proposed settlement was subject to board

approval, and that the settlement would be void without such approval during an executive

session of the board. Because only the board has the specific power to enter into contracts on

behalf of GCSC—and because plaintiff’s counsel acknowledged that this particular settlement

agreement would need to be reviewed and approved by the board [DE 61-1 at 1, 61-3 at

1]—there is no enforceable settlement agreement because ultimately the board rejected it. In

addition, by acting in good faith to settle the dispute and effectively communicating the

circumstances to plaintiff’s counsel, there is no conduct on the part of the defense to be

sanctioned. 

Having reviewed the report and recommendation [DE 63] and finding no clear error

therein, the Court ADOPTS it in its entirety and incorporates Magistrate Judge Rodovich’s

recommendations into this Order. Accordingly, the Court now DENIES the motion to enforce

the settlement and request for sanctions [DE 58]. The deputy clerk will contact counsel to set a

telephonic scheduling conference so that this case may be set for trial. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: December 13, 2016 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

Judge

United States District Court

3