Case: Jefferson v. Ingersoll Int'l Inc.

3:98-cv-50042 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: Feb. 9, 1998

Closed Date: 2001

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On February 9, 1998, a group of black former employees of defendants filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division against Ingersoll under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for monetary and injunctive relief, claiming class-wide discrimination in promotions, compensation, and hiring. Specifically, the plaintif…

On February 9, 1998, a group of black former employees of defendants filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division against Ingersoll under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for monetary and injunctive relief, claiming class-wide discrimination in promotions, compensation, and hiring. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had engaged in the following employment practices that resulted in unlawful race discrimination: (1) failure to post or disclose job promotions and job openings; (2) use of word-of-mouth hiring and nepotism in a predominantly white work force; (3) race-coding of applications; and (4) use of a subjective decisionmaking process by a predominantly white supervisory staff in hiring applicants, promoting employees and assigning wages.

On August 23, 1999, the Court (Judge Philip G. Reinhard) partially granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certified the class with regard to the hiring process, but refused to certify the compensation class and the promotion class on the ground that these claims were highly individualized and there were not enough similar situated plaintiffs.

On January 4, 2000, the Court (Judge Reinhard) granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs could not use the single employer theory as the defendants were separate corporate entities. After that, the parties engaged in multiple discovery disputes. On July 13, 2001, the parties reached a settlement, and the Court dismissed the case. The details of the settlement agreement are unavailable.

Summary Authors

Kunyi Zhang (11/5/2010)

Related Cases

EEOC v. Ingersoll International, Inc., Northern District of Illinois (1999)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5251335/parties/jefferson-v-ingersoll-intl-inc/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Allison, Robert D. (Illinois)

Bradtke, James G. (Illinois)

Elkin, Laurie S (Illinois)

Attorney for Defendant

Babbitt, Ellen M (Illinois)

Brock, Amy Pope (Wisconsin)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:98-cv-50042

Docket

Jefferson v. Ingersoll Intern. Inc.

July 1, 2010

July 1, 2010

Docket
302

3:98-cv-50042

Memorandum Opinion and Order (plaintiffs' motion for class certification is partly granted)

Jefferson v. Ingersoll Intern. Inc.

Aug. 23, 1999

Aug. 23, 1999

Order/Opinion

1999 WL 669229

423

3:98-cv-50042

Memorandum Opinion and Order (defendants' motion for partial summary judgment is granted)

Jefferson v. Ingersoll Intern. Inc.

Jan. 4, 2000

Jan. 4, 2000

Order/Opinion

2000 WL 28256

927

3:98-cv-50042

Memorandum Opinion and Order (plaintiffs' motion for post-judgment fees and expenses is partially granted)

Jefferson v. Ingersoll Intern. Inc.

Nov. 19, 2002

Nov. 19, 2002

Order/Opinion

2002 WL 31598990

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5251335/jefferson-v-ingersoll-intl-inc/

Last updated March 19, 2025, 8:51 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
927

MINUTE ORDER of 11/19/02 by Hon. Philip G. Reinhard: Cases 99 C 50362 and 98 C 50042 are consolidated for purposes of this Memorandum Opinion and Order. For the reasons stated on the reverse Memorandum Opinion and Order, plaintiff's motion for a ward of post-judgment attorney's fees and expenses is granted in part and denied in part [921-1]. Plaintiff is awarded $9965.00 in fees and $2201.14 in costs, for a total of $12,166.14. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce)

Nov. 19, 2002

Nov. 19, 2002

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 9, 1998

Closing Date: 2001

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are current or former black employees of, or black applicants for employment at one of the defendants.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Ingersoll International Inc, Private Entity/Person

Ingersoll Milling Machine Company, Private Entity/Person

Brian Howard, Private Entity/Person

Ingersoll Cutting Tool Company, Private Entity/Person

Ingersoll Maschinen, Private Entity/Person

Werkzeuge GmbH, Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1981

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: Unknown

Issues

General/Misc.:

Pattern or Practice

Discrimination Area:

Disparate Impact

Hiring

Pay / Benefits

Promotion

Discrimination Basis:

Race discrimination

Affected Race(s):

Black

EEOC-centric:

EEOC Intervened in Private Suit