~
MiB der KoAlle7)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

Milton 1. Shadur

CASE NUMBER 02 C9178 DATE 3/11/2003
CASE Latroy Hubbard vs. Certified Grocers Midwest, Inc.
TITLE

of the motion being presented.]

[In the fullowing box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) stute briefly the nature

MOTION;

DOCKET ENTRY:

qa) a Filed motion of | use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) gq Brief in support of motion due

QB) Oo Answer brief to motion due_ ___- Reply to answer briefdue___

(4) Qo Ruling/Hearing on___—_set for at.

(5) QO Status hearing[hcld/continued to] [sct for/re-set for] on ___set for _ _ al

(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-sct for] on set for at _

(7) o Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued lo at

(9) ao This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OFRcP4m) (Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) a [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Order. Affirmative Defense ] is stricken as a matter of
law.

di) @ [For further detail sce order attached to the original minute order.)

No notices required, advised in open conrt

No notices required.
umber of waices

Dacument
Number

Notices mailed by judge's staff

13 2003

Notiticd counsel by telephone, date docket

Docketing to mail

Mail AO 450 form. danas Lolyisia sl

MET Ve

Copy to judge/magistrate judge. 1G
courtroom 60:4 Rd 21 WED
SN deputy’s on
initials sy
U batbhishe dod vdd id
central Clerk's Office railing deputy tials
m —_ a a



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION DOCKETED

MAR i 3 2003
LATROY HUBBARD, )
Plaintiff, }
Vv. No. 02 ¢ 9178
CERTIFIED GROCERS MIDWEST, INC.,
Defendant. }
MEMORANDUM ORDER
In response to this Court's February 26, 2003 memorandum
order (“Order”), counsel for Certified Grocers Midwest, Inc.
(“Certified Grocers”) have filed its Amended Answer and
Affirmative Defenses (“ADs”) to the employment discrimination
action brought against Certified Grocers by its ex-employee
Latroy Hubbard. That new pleading has satisfactorily addressed
each of the matters referred to in the Order, in particular by
sharpening up the AD 1 assertion that part of Hubbard's
allegations are assertedly beyond the scope of the charge that he
had filed with EEOC.
But having said that, this Court strikes AD 1 as a
substantive matter. It has long been the rule in this Circuit

that, as recently reconfirmed in Peters v. Renaissance Hotel

Operating Co., 307 F.3d 535, 550 (7 Cir. 2002) (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted):

Generally a plaintiff may not bring claims under Title
VII that were not originally brought among the charges
to the EEOC. This rule both afford[s] an opportunity

for the EEOC to settle the dispute between the employee



and employer and put[s] the employer on notice of the

charge against it. Nevertheless, this court has

allowed plaintiffs to proceed on claims not explicitly

set forth in a charge of discrimination if the claim is

like or reasonably related to the EEOC charges and the

claim in the complaint reasonably [could] be expected

to grow out of an EEOC investigation of the charge[ ].

For purposes of this standard, [t]he claims are not

alike or reasonably related unless there is a factual

relationship between them. This means that the EEOC

charge and the complaint must, at minimum, describe the

same conduct and implicate the same individuals,
To the same effect, the Court of Appeals has commented from time
to time on the needless waste involved if an employee had to be
sent back to EEOC to file an additional charge of discrimination
in such circumstances.

In this instance Hubbard's June 21, 2002 EEOC charge
(Complaint Ex. B) followed his recitation of assertedly
discriminatory treatment on the part of Certified Grocers with
this statement:

On June 9, 2002 I was threatened with termination.
According to Complaint 4417-20, within less than two months
thereafter, and while the investigation of that charge remained
pending, Hubbard was indeed terminated. That squarely fits the
quoted language from Peters (and the uniform holdings of other
Seventh Circuit cases), and so AD 1 is stricken as a matter of

law.

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: March 11, 2003