be different, but the gravamen of the Plaintiffs’ complaints remain the same: the Plaintiffs allege that
there was a climate of discrimination (both race- and gender-based) in the Department that was
perpetuated by the Defendants. Furthermore, every Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have a policy
or practice of retaliating against employees who voice their opposition to its discriminatory practices.
In the past, courts have refused to sever plaintiffs who allege a pattern and practice of discrimination,
finding that the pattern or practice of discrimination meets Rule 20(a)’s requirement that the claims
be part of the same transaction or series of transactions. See Barner v. City of Harvey, No. 95-C-3316,
2003 WL 1720027, *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2003) (collecting cases). Additionally, when a plaintiff
alleges that defendants created, perpetuated, or encouraged an hostile work environment courts have
concluded that plaintiffs have adequately alleged that there was a widely held policy of discrimination.
See Smith o. Northeaster Ill. Univ., No. 98-C-3555, 2002 WL 377725, *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 28, 2002)
(collecting cases). In this case, Plaintiffs have alleged both an hostile working environment and a
policy of retaliation for opposing that environment, either of which sufficiently demonstrates that their
claims are part of the same transaction or series of transactions for the purposes of Rule 20(a).
Defendants nevertheless argue that the Plaintiffs’ allegations are not sufficiently detailed
adequately demonstrate that the Plaintiffs’ claims should be joined. The Court disagrees. The
Plaintiffs’ have alleged many categories of behavior that contributed to the hostile work environment:
(1) unfair assignments; (2) disproportionate disciplinary action; (3) referring to them in derogatory
terms; (4) denying training; (5) refusing to remedy complaints of discrimination; and (6) retaliating
against them if they complained about acts of discrimination. Although it is true that the disparate
discriminatory acts that each Plaintiff allegedly suffered may be different, courts must be careful not

to disaggregate the discriminatory acts in an hostile work environment claim, because it robs them of


Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims should be severed because they do not arise from the
same series of transactions or occurrences; that “the only common thread binding this diverse group
of plaintiffs and defendants is that they have all been all [sic] employed by the Cook County Sheriffs
Office.” Defendants’ argument is not convincing. First, the Defendants’ characterization of the
Plaintiffs claims as wholly independent and unrelated is inaccurate. For example, five of the Plaintiffs
(Patterson, Scaife, Littleton, Antone, and James) allege that a controversy arose in March 1999 related
to the hours that they worked or were assigned to work and that they were redeployed to unfavorable
positions in November 1999, after voicing their concerns that the Department had been discriminating
against them. Similarly, Higens, Parker and Walker allege that in 2000 Higens complained about an
hostile work environment and that Parker and Walker provided support for Higens’ complaint.
Higens, Parker, and Walker allege that the Defendants retaliated against them for actions in relation
to Higens’ complaint. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ complaint, at a minimum, contains a group of five
and a group of three Plaintiffs whose claims arise from the same series of transactions or occurrences.
Defendants’ argument that the fourteen plaintiffs are entirely unrelated grossly mischaracterizes the
complaint.”

There is another theme that binds the remaining Plaintiffs with those mentioned above. All
of the Plaintiffs (except Antone and Micnerski) allege that the Defendants created an hostile working
environment in which they were subjected to unfair assignments, disproportionate disciplinary action,

and discriminatory statements based on their race or gender. The individual acts of discrimination may

2 Another gross mischaracterization can be found in Defendants’ reply brief. In their reply
brief, Defendants argue that “plaintiffs were apparently unable to certify a class so as to proceed in a
class action lawsuit against the Sheriffs Department. They should not be allowed to avoid the
requirements of class certification by simply joining numerous unrelated claims here.” Def. Reply in
Supp. of Mot. to Sever, at 4). This argument is curious. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendant has
presented a motion to certify the class.



their cumulative effect. Berry v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 260 F.3d 803, 811 (7th Cir. 2001). It is the
cumulative impact of the discriminatory acts that matters. Rodgers v. Western-Southern Life Ins. Co.,
12 F.3d 668, 675 (7th Cir.1993). In this case, the proof necessary to establish that individual Plaintiffs
were subjected to an hostile working environment within the Department overlaps, for each Plaintiff
must demonstrate that within the Department was a climate of racism and/or sexism sufficiently severe
that a reasonable person would find the work environment abusive or hostile. Judicial resources are
scarce, and it makes little sense to parade the same set of witnesses to repeat the same testimony in
fourteen individual trials when the witnesses could be called but one time. See Maclin v. Northem
Telecom, Inc., No. 95-C-7485, 1996 WL 495558, *6 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 28, 1996) (courts more inclined
to find claims arose out of the same transaction when separate trials would result in delay,
inconvenience, and added expense due to the likelihood of overlapping proof and duplicative
testimony). Moreover, merely because some Plaintiffs allege discrimination based upon gender or
disability in addition to or even instead of discrimination based upon race is insufficient to require
severance. See Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of Chicago, Inc., 49 F.3d 1224-25, (7th Cir. 1995) (upholding
denial of severance where Plaintiffs’ claims varied).

Defendants have made no argument that a jury would have any difficulty sorting out the
allegations of each individual Plaintiff or that there would be any confusion over their claims. They
make no argument that joining Plaintiffs’ claims would prejudice their interests. Defendants simply
argue that the Plaintiffs’ claims are unrelated. As noted above, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs’
allegations satisfy the requirements of Rule 20(a), and Defendants’ motion to sever is therefore

DENIED.



Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Jud li ; Sitting Judge if Oth

Magica Judge William J. Hibbler Chant Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 01-C-9557 DATE July 30, 2003
CASE Patterson et al. v. Sheahan et al.
TITLE

[in the following box () indicate the parcy filing the motion, eg, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaincff, and (b) state briefly the
nature of the motion being presented.]

MOTION:
Defendants’ Motion to Sever (doc. # 40)
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) Q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
A) oO Brief in support of motion due
(3) a Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due
(4) Q Ruling/Hearing on __set for_at
(6) a Status hearing (held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on _set for at
() a Pretrial conference [held/continued to] [set for/re-set forlon__setfor_at___.
(7) a Trial (set for/re-set for]on__at
(8) a {Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to __at
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs [by/agreement/pursuant to}

OFRCP4(m) General Rule 21 OFRCP#(@)() OFRCP41(@)(Q).
(10) ml [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Defendants’ Motion to Sever the claims of Dennis

Micnerski is GRANTED. Plaintiff Dennis Micnerski’s claims are severed and the Clerk is directed to assign Micnerski’s
claims a new cause number. Defendants’ Motion to Sever remaining Plaintiffs is DENIED.

(11) Oo [For further detail see order on the reverse side of the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.
‘a umber of notices

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Y_ | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice

courtroom
yHC deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in ;
central Clerk's Office railing deputy inivials



On a final note, Plaintiffs agree to sever the claims of Micnerski. Accordingly, Micnerski’s
claims are severed and are to be assigned a new cause number.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Z[se fos Kio, fo Xe
Dated The Honorgb¥ William J. Hibbler

United States District Court



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

EASTERN DIVISION My
r, Ney,
CHERYL PATTERSON, JEFFREY ANTONE, M ay 4
SAMUEL SCAIFE, BERNARD LITTLETON, <0gg

DARLENE JAMES, ROSA PRICE, DEBRA
HIGENS, LARRY PARKER, DAVID WALKER,
FLOYD BEATTY, DENNIS MICNERSKI,
SEAN ROBERTS, KEVIN WILLIAMS,

and RUBEN HASSAN,

Plaintiffs
No. 01-C-9557
v.
The Honorable William J. Hibbler

THE COUNTY OF COOK, MICHAEL J.
SHEAHAN, in his official capacity as Sheriff

of Cook County, Illinois, RANDY PIETROWSKI,
in his individual and official capacities,
HENRIQUE CAMPILLO, in his individual and
official capacities, WILLIAM WALLACE,

in his individual and official capacities,
MICHAEL RICCI, in his individual and official
capacities, DAVID DEVANE, GREG SHIELDS
THOMAS DOURDY, WILLIAM PELLEGRINI,
KENNETH TWOREK, JOSEPH LOGUE,
EDWARD HEALY, ROBERT HELSON,
JOSEPH RANZINO, JAMES MALINOWSKI,
THOMAS FITZGERALD, and MATHEW
MCNAMARA,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

A group of Cook County, Illinois, Sheriff's Department employees (both current and former)
sued Sheriff Michael Sheahan and other Sheriffs Department supervisors and employees, raising a host

of claims related to discriminatory practices in the Department. The complaint has been amended

1 |


three times, with each amendment adding Plaintiffs or Defendants. After each complaint, but for the
First Amended Complaint, the Defendants moved to dismiss, and as the number of Plaintiffs grew, the
Defendants also began moving to sever the Plaintiffs’ claims. On June 13, 2003, the Court ruled on
the Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and now the motion to sever is fully briefed and ripe for
adjudication."

Rule 20(a) provides for permissive joinder of plaintiffs if they assert claims “arising out of the
smae transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact
common to all those persons will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a). Rule 21, however,
authorizes the Court to dismiss any misjoined party at any stage of a lawsuit if it determines that the
preconditions for permissive joinder set forth in Rule 20(a) are not met. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. A district
court possesses wide discretion relative to the joinder of parties under Fed.R.Civ.P. 20(a), which was
designed to promote trial convenience and to expedite the resolution of disputes. Gorence v. Eagle Food
Centers, Inc., No. 93-C-4862, 1996 WL 734955, *3 (N.D.IIl. Dec. 19, 1996). “Under the Rules, the
impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the

parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.” United Mine Workers of America

v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724, 86 S. Ct. 1130, 1138 (1966).

"In the June 13, 2003 ruling on the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint, the Court informed the parties that the quality of the briefs was substandard. Among
the errors the Court pointed out to was a failure to cite to the Complaint pending before the Court.
In their brief in response to Defendants’ motion to sever, the Plaintiffs refer to the Second
Amended Complaint, which has of course been superseded by the Third Amended Complaint.
Indeed, the Second Amended Complaint contains but eleven named plaintiffs, whereas the Third
Amended Complaint contains fourteen—and thus the Plaintiffs have made no specific arguments
regarding the newly named Plaintiffs. Perhaps Plaintiffs’ error was merely careless and not
intentional. But the result is nonetheless the same. Plaintiffs’ inaccurate citations create more
work for their opponent and more work for the Court. The Court once again advises both parties
that it is not the Court’s task to construct arguments for the parties or to scour the record looking
for support for those arguments.