Case: Drnek v City of Chicago  

1:01-cv-00840 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: Feb. 6, 2001

Closed Date: Jan. 26, 2005

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 17, 2000 the City of Chicago adopted an ordinance that required all police officers and firefighters over the age of 63 to be involuntarily retired at the end of the year. Plaintiff filed suit against the City of Chicago on February 6, 2001 after he was forced to retire from the police force. He alleged a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). This act makes it unlawful to discharge a person because of his or her age but contains a public safety exception for po…

On May 17, 2000 the City of Chicago adopted an ordinance that required all police officers and firefighters over the age of 63 to be involuntarily retired at the end of the year. Plaintiff filed suit against the City of Chicago on February 6, 2001 after he was forced to retire from the police force. He alleged a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). This act makes it unlawful to discharge a person because of his or her age but contains a public safety exception for police officers and firefighters so long as the forced retirement is not a subterfuge. Plaintiff also alleged due process violations under the United States and Illinois Constitutions.

The case was consolidated with Minch v. City of Chicago, a case brought by firefighters with the same complaints. On April 9, 2001 Chicago filed a motion to dismiss. The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Judge Elaine E. Bucklo) granted defendant's motion to dismiss in regards to the due process claims of the police plaintiffs but denied it in regards to all other claims on March 25, 2002. Chicago then filed a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Seventh Circuit which was granted on May 5, 2002.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Judge Posner, Judge Manion, and Judge Rovener) ruled on April 9, 2004 that it was possible for a plaintiff to prevail in a case of this sort but that in this particular case it was not. The Court remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the ADEA claims. On May 13, 2004 the district court (Judge Samuel Der−Yeghiayan) did so. The cases were completely dismissed on January 26, 2005 after the firefights elected not to continue with their due process claims.

Summary Authors

Michael Perry (6/16/2010)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5210773/parties/drnek-v-chgo-cty-of/


Judge(s)

Bucklo, Elaine E. (Illinois)

Der-Yeghiayan, Samuel (Illinois)

Manion, Daniel Anthony (Indiana)

Posner, Richard Allen (Illinois)

Rovner, Ilana Kara Diamond (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Futterman, Ronald L. (Illinois)

Karnuth, Michael R. (Illinois)

Krislov, Clinton A. (Illinois)

Matlack, Joan (Illinois)

Thomas, William Woods (Illinois)

Judge(s)

Bucklo, Elaine E. (Illinois)

Der-Yeghiayan, Samuel (Illinois)

Manion, Daniel Anthony (Indiana)

Posner, Richard Allen (Illinois)

Rovner, Ilana Kara Diamond (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Futterman, Ronald L. (Illinois)

Karnuth, Michael R. (Illinois)

Krislov, Clinton A. (Illinois)

Matlack, Joan (Illinois)

Thomas, William Woods (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Georges, Mara Stacy (Illinois)

Rosenthal, Lawrence (Illinois)

Soloman, Benna Ruth (Illinois)

Van Allen, Nancy L. (Illinois)

Zreczny, Myriam (Illinois)

Other Attorney(s)

McCann, Laurie A. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

General Docket US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Drnek v. City of Chicago

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Oct. 13, 2004 Docket

Docket

Drenk v. City of Chicago

Jan. 26, 2005 Docket
1

Complaint

Drnek v. City of Chicago

Feb. 6, 2001 Complaint
6

Amended Complaint

Drnek v. City of Chicago

2001 WL 34483995

May 8, 2001 Pleading / Motion / Brief
32

Memorandum Opinion and Order (Denying defendant's motion dismiss as to ADEA claims and granting its motion to dismiss as to due process claims)

Drnek v. City of Chicago

192 F.Supp.2d 835

March 25, 2002 Order/Opinion
42

Memorandum Opinion and Order (Denying defendant's motion to reconsider and granting its motion for interlocutory appeal)

Drnek v. City of Chicago

205 F.Supp.2d 894, 2002 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 9264

May 22, 2002 Order/Opinion

Brief of Defendant-Appellant City of Chicago

Drnek v. City of Chicago

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

2002 WL 32307758

Oct. 11, 2002 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Response Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees

Drnek v. City of Chicago

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Jan. 10, 2003 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Reply Brief of Defendant-Appellant City of Chicago

Drnek v. City of Chicago

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

2002 WL 32307760

Feb. 21, 2003 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Opinion (Remanding to the district court with instructions to dismiss)

Drnek v. City of Chicago

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

363 F.3d 615, 2004 U.S.App.LEXIS 6927

April 9, 2004 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5210773/drnek-v-chgo-cty-of/

Last updated May 20, 2022, 2:11 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT; jury demand − Civil cover sheet − Appearance(s) of Clinton A. Krislov, Michael R. Karnuth, Ronald L. Futterman and Joan Matlack as attorney(s) for plaintiff Donald Drnek (No summons(es) issued.) (Documents: 1−1 through 1−3) (hp) (Entered: 02/07/2001)

Feb. 6, 2001
32

MINUTE ORDER of 3/25/02 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Status hearing set for 10:00 a.m. on 4/26/02. Enter memorandum opinion and order denying defendant's motion to dismiss {10-1} as to the ADEA claims of the plaintiff. The motion is granted as to the due process claims of plaintiff. At the status hearing the court will set discovery and trial schedules in this case. Prior to the status hearing, the parties shall confer and provide the court with a proposed written discovery schedule. Any moti on for summary judgment must be filed within 14 days after the date set in the scheduling order for close of discovery. Any extension of discovery will not extend the time for filing motions for summary judgment. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mailed notices by judge's staff. (las)

March 25, 2002 RECAP
42

MINUTE ORDER of 5/22/02 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo: Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order denying defendant's motion to reconsider and granting its motion to amend the order to certify an immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) [33-1]. Notice mailed by judge's staff. (dmkf) Modified on 05/24/2002

May 22, 2002 RECAP

RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 2/6/01 in the amount of $150.00, receipt #1023110. (hp) (Entered: 02/07/2001)

Feb. 6, 2001

SUMMONS and one copy issued as to defendant. (ac) (Entered: 03/20/2001)

March 19, 2001
2

RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to defendant on 3/19/01 (yap) (Entered: 03/21/2001)

March 20, 2001
3

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Nancy L. Van Allen, Patricia M. Carroll−Smit, Barbara Susan Smith, Mara Stacy Georges; Notice. (yp) Modified on 03/23/2001 (Entered: 03/23/2001)

March 22, 2001
5

MINUTE ORDER of 4/16/01 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Response to defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint [4−1] is due by 4/8/01; and any reply by 5/22/01. Ruling set for 10:00 a.m. on 6/29/01. Mailed notice (yp) Modified on 04/18/2001 (Entered: 04/17/2001)

April 16, 2001
6

AMENDED COMPLAINT [1−1] by plaintiff; jury demand (Attachments) (rmm) (Entered: 05/15/2001)

May 8, 2001
8

MOTION by plaintiff for reassignment based on relatedness (Attachments); Notice. (mw) (Entered: 05/23/2001)

May 11, 2001
7

MINUTE ORDER of 5/14/01 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo: Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint, defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint is denied [4−1]. Ruling on that motion set for 6/29/01 is also vacated. Mailed notice (rmm) (Entered: 05/15/2001)

May 14, 2001
9

MINUTE ORDER of 5/18/01 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Plaintiff's unopposed motion to reassign the case of Minch, et al. Vs. City of Chicago, 01 C 2586 pending before Judge Norgle to my calendar based on relatedness [8−1] is granted. Defendant's proposed motion to dismiss to be filed by 06/08/01; response by 06/29/01; and any replies by 07/13/01. Ruling set for 08/17/01 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (mw) (Entered: 05/23/2001)

May 18, 2001
10

MOTION by defendant to dismiss amended complaint ; Notice of motion; Memorandum in support (Attachments) (eav) (Entered: 06/13/2001)

June 8, 2001
11

MOTION by plaintiff for an extension of time for the filing of a response to defendant's motion to dismiss ; Notice of motion (eav) (Entered: 06/29/2001)

June 22, 2001
12

MINUTE ORDER of 6/28/01 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Plaintiff's motion for extension of time until 7/20/01 to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. [11−1] Accordingly, [10−1] reply is extended to 8/10/01. Ruling set for 8/17/01 is reset for 9/14/01 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (eav) (Entered: 06/29/2001)

June 28, 2001
13

MOTION by plaintiff for a second extension of time for the filing of a response to defendant's motion to dismiss ; Notice. (cem) Modified on 07/26/2001 (Entered: 07/26/2001)

July 20, 2001
14

MINUTE ORDER of 7/25/01 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Plaintiff's motion for a second extension of time until 7/30/01 to file response to defendant's motion to dismiss is granted [13−1]. Accordingly, reply is extended to 8/20/01. Mailed notice (cem) (Entered: 07/26/2001)

July 25, 2001
15

MOTION by plaintiff for a third extension of time for the filing of a response to defendant's motion to dismiss this action ; Notice (jmp) Modified on 08/09/2001 (Entered: 08/08/2001)

July 27, 2001
16

MINUTE ORDER of 8/7/01 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Plaintiff's motion for a third extension of time until 08/06/01 for the filing of a response to defendant's motion to dismiss this action is granted [15−1]. Accordingly, reply to dismiss amended complaint [10−1] is extended to 08/27/01. Accordingly ruling set for 9/14/01 is reset for 10:00 a.m. on 10/05/01. Mailed notice (jmp) Modified on 08/09/2001 (Entered: 08/08/2001)

Aug. 7, 2001
17

UNOPPOSED MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file instanter an oversized response in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss ; Notice. (mw) (Entered: 08/20/2001)

Aug. 13, 2001
18

RESPONSE by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss [10−1]. (mw) (Entered: 08/20/2001)

Aug. 13, 2001
19

MINUTE ORDER of 8/17/01 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file an oversized response brief [17−1] is granted on condition that plaintiff will not exceed the page limit in any other brief filed in this case. Defendant has until 08/31/01 to file its reply brief. Mailed notice (mw) (Entered: 08/20/2001)

Aug. 17, 2001
21

MINUTE ORDER of 9/17/01 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Defendant's motion for extension of time until 9/21/01 to file its reply brief is also granted [20−1]. Ruling set for 10/5/01 is reset for 10/19/01 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (maf) (Entered: 09/18/2001)

Sept. 17, 2001
22

AGREED MOTION by defendant for an additional extension of time to file its reply memorandum in further support of its motion to dismiss ; Notice. (cem) (Entered: 09/25/2001)

Sept. 21, 2001
23

MINUTE ORDER of 9/24/01 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Defendant's agreed motion for extension of time until 9/28/01 to file its reply on motion to dismiss is granted [22−1]. Mailed notice (cem) (Entered: 09/25/2001)

Sept. 24, 2001
24

MOTION by defendant for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages , with reply memorandum in support (Attachments); Notice. (mw) (Entered: 10/05/2001)

Sept. 28, 2001
25

MINUTE ORDER of 10/4/01 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Defendant's motion for leave to file brief in excess of 15 pages is granted [24−1]. Defendant seeks to file a 34 page brief. It is very clear to me that this brief could have been shorter, and would have been more effective if it had been edited. However, I will grant this moiton and we will try to read through the excess language to get to the point. Mailed notice (mw) (Entered: 10/05/2001)

Oct. 4, 2001
24

REPLY memorandum by defendant in further support of its motion to dismiss [10−1], with motion (Attachments); Notice. (mw) (Entered: 10/05/2001)

Oct. 4, 2001
26

MINUTE ORDER of 10/18/01 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo: Ruling on the pending motion to dismiss [10−1] set for 10/19/01 is vacated. Ruling will be made by mail. Mailed notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/19/2001)

Oct. 18, 2001
27

MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file surreply instanter in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss ; Notice. (lc) (Entered: 11/02/2001)

Oct. 26, 2001
28

MINUTE ORDER of 11/1/01 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Plaintiff's motion for leave to file surreply instanter on defendant's motion to dismiss is granted [27−1]. Mailed notice (lc) (Entered: 11/02/2001)

Nov. 1, 2001
29

MINUTE ORDER of 2/15/02 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : The City of Chicago is ordered to submit, by 5:00 p.m. on 02/20/02, any documentation showing that the firefighters' collective bargaining agreement, attached to its motion, has been adopted into the Chicago Municipal Code. (See reverse of minute order) Telephoned notice. (jmp) (Entered: 02/19/2002)

Feb. 15, 2002

ORAL MOTION by defendant to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint . (lc) (Entered: 03/05/2002)

March 4, 2002
30

MINUTE ORDER of 3/4/02 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : This court will hear oral argument on defendant's motion to dismiss, limited to the question of whether plaintiff, consistent with Rule 11, Fed.R.Civ.P., has any facts that would support the allegations in paragraph 17 of his amended complaint. Oral argument set for 3/8/02 at 1:00p.m. Telephoned notice (lc) (Entered: 03/05/2002)

March 4, 2002

NOTICE of change of address by Clinton A. Krislov (in 99cv2421). (ntf) (Entered: 03/12/2002)

March 7, 2002
31

MINUTE ORDER of 3/8/02 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo: Oral arguent held. Ruling to be made by mail. No notice (rmm) (Entered: 03/11/2002)

March 8, 2002
33

MOTION by defendant to amend 3/25/02, order to include certification of question for interlocutory appeal ; Notice. (cem) (Entered: 04/11/2002)

April 4, 2002
34

MOTION by defendant for extension of time to answer plaintiff's complaints ; Notice. (cem) (Entered: 04/11/2002)

April 4, 2002
35

MINUTE ORDER of 4/10/02 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Telephone conference held. Defendant's motion for an interlocutory appeal [33−1], which as agreed will be treated as a motion to reconsider in light of a case relied upon in the motion and not previously cited to the court, will be taken under advisement. Plaintiffs are given until 4/24/02 to respond. Defendant will have until 5/2/02 to reply. Ruling will be on 5/10/02 at 9:30 a.m. Defendant's motion for extension of time to answer plaintiff's complaints is granted [34−1]. Mailed notice (cem) (Entered: 04/11/2002)

April 10, 2002
38

MOTION by defendant to stay discovery pending a ruling on defendant's motion under 28 U.S.C. 1292 (Attachments); Notice. (mw) (Entered: 04/25/2002)

April 16, 2002
36

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiff by William W Thomas (ntf) (Entered: 04/25/2002)

April 24, 2002
37

RESPONSE by plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss [0−1]; Notice. (ntf) (Entered: 04/25/2002)

April 24, 2002
39

MINUTE ORDER of 4/24/02 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Defendant's motion to stay discovery pending a ruling on defendant's motion under 28 U.S.C. 1292 [38−1] is granted. Mailed notice (mw) (Entered: 04/25/2002)

April 24, 2002

SCHEDULE set on 4/25/02 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Status hearing reset to 10:00 5/31/02 . Mailed notice (mpj) (Entered: 04/25/2002)

April 25, 2002
40

REPLY by defendant in support of motion to amend 3/25/02, order to include certification for interlocutory appeal [33−1] (Attachment); Notice. (hmb) (Entered: 05/03/2002)

May 2, 2002
41

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 03/08/02 Before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo. (ntf) (Entered: 05/06/2002)

May 3, 2002
43

MOTION by plaintiff for reconsideration of this court's 05/22/02 order granting certification of a question for interlocutory review ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 06/07/2002)

June 6, 2002
44

MINUTE ORDER of 6/6/02 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Status hearing held. Stay of discovery on plaintiff's due process claim is lifted. Response to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this court's 05/22/02 order granting certification of a question for interlocutory review [43−1] is due by 6/21/02; and any reply by 6/28/02. Ruling set for 7/12/02 at 10:00 a.m. [43−1]. Mailed notice (yap) (Entered: 06/10/2002)

June 6, 2002
45

CERTIFIED copy of Order dated 06/11/02 from the 7th Circuit. It is ordered that the petitions for leave to appeal are granted. Petitioner shall pay the required appellate fees to the clerk of the district court within ten days from the entry of this order pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(d)(1). Once the district court notifies this court that the fees have been paid, the appeals will be entered on this court's general docket. It is further ordered that the resulting appeals will be consolidated for the purposes of briefing and disposition (02−8012 &02−8013). (ntf) (Entered: 06/17/2002)

June 14, 2002

TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the short record on appeal [46−1] . Mailed notice to all counsel. (mak) (Entered: 06/20/2002)

June 20, 2002
48

SEVENTH CIRCUIT transcript information sheet by defendant (ntf) (Entered: 06/21/2002)

June 20, 2002
47

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of receipt of short record on appeal [46−1] USCA 02−2588 (ntf) (Entered: 06/21/2002)

June 21, 2002
49

MINUTE ORDER of 6/27/02 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time until 07/09/02 to respond to plaintiffs' class certification motions and their motion to reconsider the court's order certifying a question to the court of appeals for interlocutory appeal is granted. Accordingly, replies are extended to 07/23/02. Rulings set for 7/12/02 and 8/9/2 are reset for 10:00 a..m. on 09/13/02. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 06/28/2002)

June 27, 2002

TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit the long record on appeal no. 02−2588 consisting of one volume of pleadings and one volume of transcripts and one volume loose pleadings under separate certificate on appeal [46−1] Mailed notice to all counsel. (mak) (Entered: 08/21/2002)

July 3, 2002
50

MINUTE ORDER of 7/15/02 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this court's 05/22/02 order granting certification of a question for interlocutory review is withdrawn [43−1]. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 07/16/2002)

July 15, 2002
51

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 05/18/01,04/10/02,06/06/02 appeal [46−1] Before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo (ntf) (Entered: 08/13/2002)

Aug. 12, 2002
52

MINUTE ORDER of 8/15/02 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo: Plaintiff's motion to amend briefing schedule on class certification is granted as follows: Plaintiffs have until 09/30/02 to file their reply brief on their second amended motion for class certification. Ruling set for 09/13/02 is reset for 10/11/02 at 10:00 a.m. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 08/20/2002)

Aug. 15, 2002

TRANSMITTED to the 7th Circuit supplement to appeal no. 02−2588 consisting of three volumes of transcripts of proceedings (Doc #'s 51−1 through 51−3) with certified copy of docket entries. Mailed notice to all counsel. (mak) Modified on 08/23/2002 (Entered: 08/23/2002)

Aug. 23, 2002
53

MINUTE ORDER of 12/13/02 by Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo : Plaintiffs' motion for clas certification (51−1) is granted. The motion for initial notice of the opt−in class so certified is also granted. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file instanter amended reply on their motion for class certification is denied as moot. Defendant's motion for a protective order is granted in part. Defendant shall answer the requests for written discovery attached to defendant's motion . Oral discovery is stayed pending the Seventh Circuit's ruling on the current appeal. Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied as moot. Ruling set for 01/10/03 is therefore vacated. (See reverse of minute order.) No notice (lc) Modified on 12/16/2002 (Entered: 12/16/2002)

Dec. 13, 2002

EXECUTIVE committee order of 08/05/03 This case is reassigned to the Hon. Samuel Der−Yeghiayan Mailed notice (nlf) (Entered: 08/07/2003)

Aug. 5, 2003

SCHEDULE set on 9/4/03 by Hon. Samuel Der−Yeghiayan : Status hearing set for 09/22/03 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Samuel Der−Yeghiayan in Courtroom 1719. The parties are directed to submit a joint status report as set out on the reverse of this order. Mailed notice (mw) (Entered: 09/04/2003)

Sept. 4, 2003
54

JOINT STATUS REPORT by parties; Notice. (ntf) (Entered: 09/22/2003)

Sept. 19, 2003

SCHEDULE set on 11/14/03 by Hon. Samuel Der−Yeghiayan : At the parties' request, the status hearing set for 11/17/03 is stricken and reset to 12/17/03 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (mw) (Entered: 11/14/2003)

Nov. 14, 2003

SCHEDULE set on 12/16/03 by Hon. Samuel Der−Yeghiayan : Counsel for the plaintiffs advise this Court's Courtroom Deputy that the 7th Circuit has not made any rulings to date. Therefore at the parties' request the status hearing set for 12/17/03 is stricken and reset to 1/21/04 at 9:00 a.m Telephoned notice (mw) (Entered: 12/16/2003)

Dec. 16, 2003

SCHEDULE set on 1/21/04 by Hon. Samuel Der−Yeghiayan : Status hearing held and cotninued to 03/29/04 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (mw) (Entered: 01/21/2004)

Jan. 21, 2004
55

MINUTE ORDER of 3/29/04 by Hon. Samuel Der−Yeghiayan : Status hearing held. By agreement of the parties, there are no pending motions. Counsel for the parties advised the Court that oral arguments had concluded on 02/28/03 in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is closed without prejudice to either party moving for reinstatement once the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals makes a ruling, and the case will be reinstated by this Court terminating case . Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 03/29/2004)

March 29, 2004
57

MOTION by plaintiff for reconsideration , and modification of the Court's 03/29/04 sua sponte order of dismissal ; Notice (ntf) (Entered: 04/20/2004)

April 12, 2004
56

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Torrick Alan Ward (ntf) (Entered: 04/19/2004)

April 16, 2004
58

MINUTE ORDER of 4/20/04 by Hon. Samuel Der−Yeghiayan : Status hearing set for 5/13/04 at 9:00 a.m to set deadlines. Plaintiff's motion to reconsider [57−1], and modify the Court's 03/29/04 sua sponte order of dismissal [57−2] is granted. Case reinstated Case reopened . The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals having ruled on the pending appeal, counsel for the plaintiffs is to be prepared at the next status hearing to advise the Court on how and if they plan to pursue further action in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals relating to their recent ruling. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 04/20/2004)

April 20, 2004
59

MINUTE ORDER of 5/13/04 by Hon. Samuel Der−Yeghiayan : Status hearing held and continued to 10/7/04 at 9:00 a.m. The 7th Circuit having issued its mandate, the plaintiffs' ADEA claims are hereby dismissed. The defendant is given leave to re−file its motion to dismiss addressing the firefighters' remaining due process claim on or before 07/19/04. The plaintiffs' response is to be filed by 08/23/04. Defendant's reply in support is to be filed by 09/07/04. Mailed notice (ntf) (Entered: 05/14/2004)

May 13, 2004
60

LETTER from the 7th Circuit returning the record on appeal no. 02−2588 consisting of: Three volumes of pleadings, three loose pleadings and six volumes of trancripts. (cem) (Entered: 05/14/2004)

May 13, 2004
61

OPINION from the 7th Circuit: Argued 02/28/03; Decided 04/09/04. ( 02−2588) (cem) (Entered: 05/14/2004)

May 13, 2004
62

CERTIFIED COPY of order from the 7th Circuit: These appeals are remanded, in accordance with the decision of this court entered on this date. Each party shall bear their own costs [46−1]. (02−2588) (cem) (Entered: 05/14/2004)

May 13, 2004
63

MINUTE ORDER of 8/12/04 by Hon. Samuel Der−Yeghiayan : Status hearing set for 10/07/2004 is reset to 9:00 a.m. 11/30/04. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 08/13/2004)

Aug. 12, 2004
64

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): August 15, 2002 Before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo. (One Volume). (gl) (Entered: 10/13/2004)

Oct. 12, 2004
66

MINUTE entry before Judge Samuel Der−Yeghiayan : Status hearing held on 1/26/2005. No claims are left in this case based upon the decision in the Minch case. Case dismissed. (tlp, ) (Entered: 01/28/2005)

Jan. 26, 2005

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 6, 2001

Closing Date: Jan. 26, 2005

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A City of Chicago police officer forced to retire at the age of 65.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

City of Chicago (Chicago, Cook), City

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

Discrimination-area:

Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff

Discrimination-basis:

Age discrimination