Instead, the EEBOC need only provide sufficient facts to fall under
either theory. The EEOC has done this. The ultimate issue of
whether all Defendants fall under the single employer or Eggleston
theories is best reserved to the fact-finder. See Jackowski v. Seoco,
Ine. Northern, 2001 WL 709485 (N.D, Ill. 2001); Harris v. Stallman
Trucking Co., 951 F. Supp. 134 (N.D. Ill., 1997). In addition, the
issue of whether Custom Companies was deceitful during the
conciliation process, to the extent that it presented itself as
employing individuals who were in fact employed by CDN Logistics, is
best left to the jury, Accordingly, the proper course here,
particularly in light of the liberal construal of Title VII pleading
requirements, is to allow the EEOC to amend its complaints to include
CDN Logistics. See Hann v, Paul Revere Life Insurance Co., 2004 Wu
557380 *2 (N.D, T1l. 2004).

“oO

TII. CONCLUSION _
For the foregoing reasons, the cis on)

IT IS SO ORDERED,

Harry D, Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court

Date: 0 Od


II. DISCUSSION

The “single employer theory” allows a plaintiff to add
defendants who, although not named in the governing EEOC charge, are
nevertheless sufficiently aligned with the named party to fall under
the purview of the EEOC charge. This theory is available under the
following conditions; (1) where the traditional conditions are
present for piercing the corporate veil; (2) where an enterprise has
split itself up into a number of corporations for the purpose of
shielding itself from the statutory minimum number of employees; or
(3) where the parent corporation directed the discriminatory act,
practice, or policy instituted by a subsidiary. See Papa v. Katy
Industries, 166 F.3d 937, 940-941 (7th Cir. 1999). Separate from the
single employer theory, a plaintiff may add a previously-unnamed
defendant if such party has been provided with adequate notice of the
charge and under circumstances where the party has been given the
opportunity to participate in conciliation proceedings. See
Eggleston v. Chicago Journeymen Plumbers’ Local Union No, 130. 657
F.2d 890, 905 (7th Cir, 1981); Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co.,
887 F.2d 124 (7th Cir. 1989).

The procedural posture of this case does not require that the
Court delve further into the finer details of the governing law.
Specifically, discovery is ongoing in this case - in fact, the key
directors and officers of the companies at issue have net been
deposed, At this point, the EEOC does not shoulder the burden of
proving its argument under the single-employer or Eggleston theories.

-3-



Miute Order Porm (06/07)

United States District Court, Northern District of Ilinois

Namestamind nie | Hary D.Leinenweber | Stn oe fe
CASE NUMBER | 02 C 3768 consw/93-€-2293- DATE 7/20/2004
CASE Equal Employment Opportunity vs. Catherine Copello, et al
TITLE
[ln the following box (a) indicute the party filing the motion, e.g. plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
Motion; of the motion being presented.
DOCKET ENTRY:
qa) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Qa Brief in support of motion due
(3) Q Answer briefto motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue,_
(4) Q Ruling/Hearingon____ set for at.
(5) im Status hearing[held/continucd to] {sct for/re-sct for]on__—setfor at.
(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-sct for]on__—_setfor_— at.
(7) Q Trial[set for/re-sct for]on___at_
(8) Qo [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) C Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(aX1) CO FRCP41(a}(2)
ao ff {Other docket entry) © ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: BEOC’s Motion for leave to file
amended complaints in cases 02 C 3768 and 03 C 2293 is GRANTED.
al) of {For further detail see order attached to the original niinute order-]
ov _ | Nonotices required, advised in open court,
No notices required.
Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
Notified counsel by telephone.
Docketing tw mail notices,
Mail AO 450 form, gad LONE a‘sn
Copy tu judge/mugistrate judge. tle
couaroom Spi vd G2 We He
WAP deputy's rena
inal ig Teas ee in
central Clerk's Office rag deputy itis



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Fy L E D
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,
and

CATHERINE COPELLO and ALLISON
KENNEDY ,

Plaintiffs-Intervenors,
Vv.
CUSTOM COMPANIES, INC., CUSTOM
EXECUTIVE GROUP, INC. and
CUSTOM DISTRIBUTION NETWORK,
Inc.

Defendants.

JU
stoge L 2 0 2004
HARRY,
US. drsti -O- LEINEN
TRC CouRT jypeceR
Case No. 02 ¢ 3768 py
Consolidated for all
Purposes with

Case No. 03 C 2293

Hon, Harry D. Leinenwaber

poeNeTer
JUL 212004

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is the EEOC’s Motion for Leave to File Amended

Complaints in Cases 02-C-3768 and 03-C-2293,
I. BACKGROUND

The EEOC’s Motion is based on a case of mistaken identity. The
EEOC seeks to add CDN Logistics as a defendant in lieu of the current
defendant named Custom Distribution Network. It turns out thal
Custom Distribution Network was a company that dissolved in year-2000
and apparently never had employees of the sort at issue in this
litigation. The EEOC, however, discovered this only recently and

claims that it meant to include CDN Logistics, rather than Custom

Distribution Network, as a defendant. The difficulty the EOC faces



is that CDN Logistics was not named in the governing BEOC charges and
thus in the normal course would not be a proper defendant. To
overcome this, the EEOC provides several arguments. First, it claims
that CDN Logistics and Custom Companies are, in effect, the same
company, and therefore CDN Logistics can be added under the “single
employer” theory, Second, the EEOC argues that it merely mis-
identified CDN Logistics as Custom Distribution Network, and,
moreover, Defendants were purposefully deceptive about this obvious
mistake by hiding behind the fact that both companies share the “CDN”
acronym. This portion of the EEOC’s argument is not tethered te any
authority, although it seems to resonate in the general domain of
equitable tolling. Finally, the EEOC invokes the Eggleston exception
by claiming that CDN Logistics had actual or constructive notice of
the EEOC charges and therefore will not prejudiced if added to this
litigation,

Defendants, of course, vigorously contest everything that the
EEOC claims. They contend that the “single employer” theory does not
apply because Custom Companies is an entity that is entirely separate
from CDN Logistics. As to EEOC’s claim of mistaken identity,
Defendants point to the EEOC’s own shoddy investigative work and deny
having misled the EEOC. Defendants also argue that CDN Logistics had
no notice of the EEOC charges, and thus no opportunity for
conciliation, and, accordingly, will be prejudiced if added to this

litigation.