Mindte Order Form (uv?97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Jud; i Sitting Judge if Other
oe Magistrate Judge Milton I. Shadur than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 6576 DATE 12/2/2003
CASE U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity vs. PepsiAmericas, Inc.
TITLE

{in the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.]

ay

Pepsi’s Answer.

a (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

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

(2) a Brief in support of motion due

(3) oO Answer brief to motion due__. Reply to answer briefdue____.

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearingon____sset for at

(8) im Status hearing{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on.___—setfor_ = at_

(6) a Pretrial conferencefheld/continued to] [set for/re-set forlon___—_setfor__—- sat.

”) oO Trial[set for/re-set for]on__at

(8) Qo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at.

(9) Qa This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
CAFRCP4(m) Local Rule 41.1 CFRCP4I(@)(1) O FRCPAI(a)Q).

(10) Ml [Other docketentry] Enter Memorandum Order,, Defendant’s Answer 4 sentence is stricken from

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required, . 1 number of notices

Document
Number:

Notices mailed by judge’s staff. DEC 032003

Notified counsel by telephone. date dockete

Docketing to mail notices.

mene es Lynn Jaiyisia’s'0 acaimald Nee
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. M19
saan
courtroom LO: Wd ¢- 9390 Cu dave mailed nice
SN deputy’s ws
initials a
OT Ubathithe Hetived in
central Clerk's Office mailing deputy initials

te



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

U.S. BQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

)
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 03 C 6576
)
PEPSIAMERICAS, INC., ) ED
)
Defendant. ) DOCKET
DEC 0 3 2003
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pepsi-Cola General Bottlers, Inc. (“Pepsi,” incorrectly sued

as PepsiAmericas, Inc.) has filed its Answer to the Complaint in
Intervention filed by its ex-employee Renaee Henry (“Henry”).
Although for the most part the Answer is unexceptionable, this
memorandum order is issued sua sponte to correct one aspect of
Pepsi's response.

In part Answer 44 (which responds to Henry's allegations as
to her having filed a September 20, 2002 Charge of Discrimination
with the Illinois Department of Human Rights and EEOC, her
Complaint Ex. A) states:

Defendant further denies that Plaintiff's charge is
timely.

But the Charge expressly sets out alleged acts of discrimination
and retaliation that took place during the year 2002, all of
which are plainly within the 300-day statutory provision. And
that being so, both the Charge and Henry's Complaint are timely

(at least to that extent). Accordingly the above-quoted sentence

\\


is stricken from Pepsi's Answer.’

Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

Date: December 2, 2003

1 This Court expresses no view as to whether the second and
third sentences of the Charge, which appear to refer to matters
outside of the 300-day period, are or are not potentially
actionable against Pepsi on some theory.

2