ne reer Foe (067)

(/0)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge James B. Moran Sitting Judge ff Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 9381 DATE 9/16/2003
CASE Jeff Conners vs. Ford Motor Company
TITLE
[lu the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.)
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
Q) a Brief in support of motion duc
(3) a Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due
@ oO Ruling/Hearing on setfor at
(5) Q Status hearing[held/continued to) (set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Qo Pretrial conference|held/eontinued to] [set for/re-set for) on set for at :
(7) o Trial[set for/re-set for] on al
(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreemenUpursuant to]
GFRCP4(m) =O Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) 1 FRCP41(a)(2).
| [Other docket entry] | Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment is granted.
al) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
Na notices required, advised in open court Document
No natives required. campecf notices ey ‘Nummbey _
Notices mailed by judge's staff, 200
Notified counsel by telephone. tte docketed
of | Dockcting to mail notices,
wv {| Mail AQ 450 form. docketing A nd,
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
courtroom dare nailed notice
WAH deputy’s os
initinls at 1
{Dateline received in
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
JEFF CONNERS, )
)
Plaintiff, ) BO NETED
vs. ) No, 01C 9381 SEp 1 7 2003
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant. }

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against because of his race, Caucasian, by
defendant’s failure to consider him for its DD Program. Defendant filed a motion for
summary judgment on June 13, 2003. Plaintiff sought and obtained various extensions of time
to respond, the last to September 3, 2003. No response has been filed. Pursuant to Local Rule
56.1(b)(3)(B), defendant’s statement of material facts is deemed admitted.

A review of those material facts probably explains why no response was filed. Plaintiff
never filed a DD Program application. Even if he had filed such an application, the likelihood
of its acceptance was nil. His financial situation was not even remotely robust enough to
qualify and his brief experience as a general manager had not been a success. The dealership
sustained losses, the losses were increasing, and customer satisfaction evaluations were below
average.

Plaintiff's only real evidence of any racial aspect to the case is his testimony that a Ford
employee denigrated his likelihood of being accepted in the DD Program by saying plaintiff

could not go through the program because he was not African-American (the employee denies

|



No. 01 € 9381 Page 2

making the remark). But the employee was a lower-level employee who did not have any
decision-making responsibilities for the DD Program. Further, although the DD Program may
very well be a means for encouraging minority participation by making funding available to
persons with limited capital, it is not confined to minority applicants, and Caucasians who
meet the requirements do participate.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

dooney 8 Wloros

JAMES B. MORAN

Sehior Judge, U, 5, District Court
Ye . 16 > 2003.