Case: Groesch v. City of Springfield

3:04-cv-03162 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois

Filed Date: July 27, 2004

Closed Date: 2012

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On July 27, 2004, three white police officers from Springfield, IL, filed this lawsuit against the city in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, claimed that the city engaged in race discrimination in violation of Title VII and their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the city discriminated a…

On July 27, 2004, three white police officers from Springfield, IL, filed this lawsuit against the city in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, claimed that the city engaged in race discrimination in violation of Title VII and their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the city discriminated against them on the basis of race when it gave preferential treatment to a similarly situated African-American colleague when calculating his years of service to the police department for purposes of determining salary and benefits.

At various times between the late-1980s and -1990s, the plaintiffs and their colleague all voluntarily resigned from the Springfield Police Department to pursue other job opportunities. They all eventually sought to rejoin the department. When the plaintiffs reentered the force, they were treated as entry-level officers in terms of pay, benefits, and seniority. When their African-American colleague returned, however, the police department gave him credit for his years of prior service, thereby restoring his pay and benefits to their pre-resignation level. The police department acted pursuant to a new city council ordinance, passed on March 28, 2000, that specifically granted the African-American officer a retroactive leave of absence to enable him to receive credit for his previous service. The city council's stated justifications for the ordinance included diversity in the police force.

This action originally arose in state court. On April 3, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the city in the Illinois Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial District, claiming a violation of the state's equal protection clause. On November 10, 2003, the court dismissed the action as time barred, and the plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on March 2, 2004. The Illinois Appellate Court for the Fourth District affirmed the trial court's decision on July 22, 2004. Groesch v. City of Springfield, 349 Ill. App. 3d 1046 (2004). A few days later, on July 27, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in federal district court.

On February 1, 2005, the Court (Judge Jeanne E. Scott) denied the city's motion to dismiss, holding that the original state court judgment did not preclude the plaintiffs from pursuing their claims in federal court. Relying on the "paycheck accrual" rule, the Court explained that each paycheck constituted a separate act of pay discrimination for which the police officers could bring a separate claim. The parties then engaged in discovery for the next year. On July 6, 2006, the Court (Judge Scott) dismissed with prejudice one plaintiff's claims for monetary damages because he had filed for bankruptcy and the city had purchased his damages claims from the bankruptcy estate.

The Court (Judge Scott) granted in part and denied in part the city's motion for summary judgment on December 29, 2006. Groesch v. City of Springfield, 2006 WL 3842085 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 2006). Specifically, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for damages arising out of paychecks issued before April 3, 2003, the date the plaintiffs initiated the state court action, on the theory of claim preclusion: the plaintiffs could have brought these claims in that earlier state court suit but failed to do so. For similar reasons, the Court also dismissed all other claims that the plaintiffs brought before November 10, 2003, when the state trial court issued its judgment. The Court did, however, allow the plaintiffs to pursue their pay discrimination claims based on paychecks issued after November 10, 2003.

At the request of the parties, the Court (Judge Scott) issued a stay in the proceedings on February 2, 2007, pending the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007). The Ledbetter Court ultimately rejected the paycheck accrual rule and held that the plaintiffs' claims of sex discrimination in pay were time barred. Based on this decision, on July 11, 2007, the district court (Judge Scott) reviewed its December 29 order and dismissed as untimely filed the police officers' remaining Title VII claims. 2007 WL 2684085 (C.D. Ill. July 11, 2007). The Court also dismissed the Section 1983 claims, holding that these claims were barred because they could have been brought in the earlier state court action.

The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision on August 10, 2007. While the appeal was pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Congress enacted the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, overturning the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire. The Ledbetter Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, provides that the statute of limitations for filing a pay discrimination claim with the EEOC resets with each discriminatory paycheck.

On March 28, 2011, the Seventh Circuit (Judge William J. Bauer, Judge David F. Hamilton, and Judge Diane P. Wood) ruled on the plaintiffs' appeal. Groesch v. City of Springfield, 635 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 2011). In light of the Ledbetter Act, the court reversed the district court in almost every respect, holding that the Act's construction of the paycheck accrual rule meant that the plaintiffs' Title VII and Section 1983 claims were not in fact time barred. The claims filed after the state court judgment, on November 10, 2003, could therefore proceed on remand. But the circuit court affirmed the district court in holding that claim preclusion barred recovery for any claims arising before the state court judgment.

Shortly after the Seventh Circuit's remand, the parties began settlement negotiations. Presumably those negotiations were successful, because on October 16, 2012, the district court (Judge Sue E. Myerscough) acceded to the parties' request and issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice.

Summary Authors

Brian Tengel (2/2/2015)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4676867/parties/groesch-v-city-of-springfield/


Judge(s)

Bauer, William Joseph (Illinois)

Cudmore, Byron G. (Illinois)

Hamilton, David Frank (Indiana)

Myerscough, Sue Ellen (Illinois)

Scott, Jeanne E. (Illinois)

Wood, Diane Pamela (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Cullen, Mark K. (Illinois)

Lang, James A. (Illinois)

Other Attorney(s)

Active

Active

Judge(s)

Bauer, William Joseph (Illinois)

Cudmore, Byron G. (Illinois)

Hamilton, David Frank (Indiana)

Myerscough, Sue Ellen (Illinois)

Scott, Jeanne E. (Illinois)

Wood, Diane Pamela (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Cullen, Mark K. (Illinois)

Lang, James A. (Illinois)

Other Attorney(s)

Baker, James P. (Illinois)

Martinez, Frank (Illinois)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:04-cv-03162

Docket [PACER]

Oct. 16, 2012

Oct. 16, 2012

Docket
26

3:04-cv-03162

Opinion

2006 WL 3842085

Dec. 29, 2006

Dec. 29, 2006

Order/Opinion
32

3:04-cv-03162

Opinion

2007 WL 2684085

July 11, 2007

July 11, 2007

Order/Opinion
17-1

3:04-cv-03162

Brief and Required Short Appendix of the Plaintiffs-Appellants, Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer and Scott Allin

Groesch v. The City of Springfield

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Sept. 16, 2010

Sept. 16, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief
21

3:04-cv-03162

Brief of the Defendant-Appellee

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Oct. 20, 2010

Oct. 20, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief
26

3:04-cv-03162

Reply Brief of the Plaintiffs-Appellants, Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer and Scott Allin

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Nov. 10, 2010

Nov. 10, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief

3:04-cv-03162

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

635 F.3d 1020

March 28, 2011

March 28, 2011

Order/Opinion
53

3:04-cv-03162

Order

Oct. 16, 2012

Oct. 16, 2012

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4676867/groesch-v-city-of-springfield/

Last updated Aug. 2, 2022, 3:08 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against City of Springfield , filed by Plaintiffs Scott Allin, Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer. (Filing fee $ 150.)(AJ, ilcd) (Entered: 07/28/2004)

July 27, 2004

July 27, 2004

26

OPINION entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 12/29/2006: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 19) is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims for damages arising prior to th e state trial court judgment on November 10, 2003. Defendant is further entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff Shaffer's claims for monetary damages accruing prior to January 19, 2005. Summary judgment is DENIED in all other respects. The parties are directed to file any Motions in Limine by January 19, 2007. The pretrial conference remains scheduled for February 26, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. (MAS, ilcd)

Dec. 29, 2006

Dec. 29, 2006

RECAP

Filing fee: $ 150.00, receipt number S005098 (AJ, ilcd) (Entered: 07/28/2004)

July 27, 2004

July 27, 2004

2

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST pursuant to Local Rule 11.3 by Scott Allin, Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer. (AJ, ilcd) (Entered: 07/28/2004)

July 27, 2004

July 27, 2004

3

SUMMONS Returned Executed by plaintiffs. City of Springfield served on 8/13/2004, answer due 9/2/2004. (MR, ilcd) (Entered: 08/16/2004)

Aug. 16, 2004

Aug. 16, 2004

4

MOTION to Dismiss by Defendant City of Springfield. Responses due by 9/16/2004 (Lang, James) (Entered: 09/02/2004)

Sept. 2, 2004

Sept. 2, 2004

5

MEMORANDUM in Support re 4 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Defendant City of Springfield. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lang, James) (Entered: 09/02/2004)

Sept. 2, 2004

Sept. 2, 2004

6

RESPONSE to Motion re 4 MOTION to Dismiss extension of time to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss filed by Plaintiffs Scott Allin, Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer. (Baker, James) (Entered: 09/14/2004)

Sept. 14, 2004

Sept. 14, 2004

TEXT ORDER: The Court has received Plaintiffs' Request for an Extension of Time (d/e 6) e−filed as a "Response to Motion to Dismiss". Plaintiffs request that the Court extend the time for them to file a response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (d/e 4). Plaintiffs state that Defendant has no objection to the request. THEREFORE, Plaintiffs' Motion is ALLOWED. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file their reply up to and including September 27, 2004. Entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 9/15/04. (AJ, ilcd) (Entered: 09/15/2004)

Sept. 15, 2004

Sept. 15, 2004

7

Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss by Plaintiffs Scott Allin, Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer. Responses due by 10/12/2004 (Baker, James) (Entered: 09/27/2004)

Sept. 27, 2004

Sept. 27, 2004

TEXT ORDER: by Mag. Judge Charles H. Evans. Motion For An AdditionalExtension of Time (d/e 7). Motion ALLOWED. Time extended to and includingOctober 1, 2004, for plaintiffs to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss. Motion states "counsel for the Defendant does not object to this request." Entered by Mag. Judge Charles H. Evans on 9/29/04.(AJ, ilcd) (Entered: 09/29/2004)

Sept. 29, 2004

Sept. 29, 2004

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings as to 4 MOTION to Dismiss. Responses due by 10/1/2004. (AJ, ilcd) (Entered: 09/29/2004)

Sept. 29, 2004

Sept. 29, 2004

9

MOTION requesting that def mtd that it seeks summary judgment be denied or that court defer ruling on motion until disc complete by Plaintiffs Scott Allin, Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer. Responses due by 10/15/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Baker, James) (Entered: 10/01/2004)

Oct. 1, 2004

Oct. 1, 2004

10

NOTICE of compliance by Scott Allin, Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer of compliance (Baker, James) (Entered: 10/01/2004)

Oct. 1, 2004

Oct. 1, 2004

Deadlines and Hearings terminated. Response to motion deadline satisfied 10/1/2004. (AJ, ilcd) (Entered: 10/04/2004)

Oct. 4, 2004

Oct. 4, 2004

11

ORDER entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on February 1, 2005: Defendant City of Springfield, Illinois' Motion to Dismiss (d/e 4) is DENIED. In light of the court's ruling on Defendant's Motion, the Motion of the Plaintiffs, Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer and Scott Allin, Requesting that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss to the extent it seeks Summary Judgment be Denied, or, in Lieu Thereof, That this Court defer ruling on that motion until the Plaintiffs complete Discovery (d/e 9) is DENIED as moot. The City is directed to file an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before February 25, 2005. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/01/2005)

Feb. 1, 2005

Feb. 1, 2005

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant City of Springfield's Answer due on or before 2/25/2005. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/01/2005)

Feb. 1, 2005

Feb. 1, 2005

12

ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Defendant City of Springfield.(Lang, James) (Entered: 02/09/2005)

Feb. 9, 2005

Feb. 9, 2005

TEXT ORDER: Telephone Status/Scheduling is set for TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. Court will initiate conference call. Attorneys are directed tocomply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) by meeting as soon as practicable, and in any event at least fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduling conference, and are to submit a proposed discovery plan in writing to the Court at least four (4) days prior to the scheduling conference. Such a plan must include, at a minimum, those items listed in CDIL−LR 26.2(3), Rule 26(f), and CDIL−LR 16.2(E) with proposed deadlines. If a discovery plan is not submitted as required, the discovery conference may not be held and costs may be assessed. Entered by Mag. Judge Evans on 2/9/05. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/09/2005)

Feb. 9, 2005

Feb. 9, 2005

13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City of Springfield Rule 26 Disclosure (Lang, James) (Entered: 02/21/2005)

Feb. 21, 2005

Feb. 21, 2005

14

REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer. (Baker, James) (Entered: 02/23/2005)

Feb. 23, 2005

Feb. 23, 2005

15

REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting by Scott Allin. (Baker, James) (Entered: 02/23/2005)

Feb. 23, 2005

Feb. 23, 2005

MINUTE ENTRY for telephone status/scheduling conference held before Magistrate Judge Evans on 3/1/05. Status, scheduling, further proceedings considered. Attys James Baker and James Lang present. Scheduling time limits ordered: (1) No motions to join other parties and to amend pleadings to be filed after 5/1/05; (2) 7/1/05 for plaintiffs to identify testifying experts and provide Rule 26 reports; (3) 8/1/05 for defendant to identify testifying experts and provide Rule 26 reports; (4) 2/28/06 to complete all discovery; (5) 3/15/06 to file dispositive motions; (6) 6/30/06 at 10:00 a.m. for Final Pre−trial Conference (IN PERSON); and (7) 7/10/06 at 9:00 a.m. for trial. See written scheduling order entered 3/1/05. Any conflicts between scheduling order and proposed discovery plan shall be controlled by scheduling order. Entered by Mag. Judge Charles H. Evans on 3/1/05. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2005)

March 1, 2005

March 1, 2005

16

SCHEDULING ORDER entered by Judge Charles H. Evans on March 1, 2005: No motions to join other parties and to amend the pleadings to be filed after May 1, 2005; (2) February 28, 2006 to complete all discovery; (3) March 15, 2006 to file dispositive motions; (4) June 30, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for a Final Pre−Trial Conference; (5) July 10, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. for trial on the trailing trial calendar; (6) July 1, 2005 for all plaintiffs to identify testifying experts and provide Rule 26 reports and August 1, 2005, for defendant to identify testifying experts and provide Rule 26 reports. A CONTINUANCE OF THE TRIAL DATE AND/OR FINAL PRE−TRIAL DATE, DOES NOT ALTER OR EXTEND ANY OF THE OTHER ABOVE DATES. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 03/02/2005)

March 2, 2005

March 2, 2005

17

First MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Modify Scheduling Order by Plaintiffs Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer, Scott Allin. Responses due by 3/7/2006 (Baker, James) (Entered: 02/21/2006)

Feb. 21, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

MINUTE ENTRY: for proceedings on 2/23/06. Telephone hearing regarding Joint Request of the Parties to Modify the Scheduling Order (d/e 17). Attys James Baker and James Lang present. Motion (d/e 17) ALLOWED. Scheduling Order dated 3/1/05 amended as follows: 5/30/06 to complete all discovery; 6/13/06 to file dispositive motions; 10/2/06 at 10:00 a.m. for Final Pre−trial Conference (IN PERSON); and 10/3/06 at 9:00 a.m. for trial. All other dates and provisions in the 3/1/05 scheduling order remain unchanged. (NOTE: 6/30/06 FPT and 7/10/06 trial dates CANCELED). Court understands no further motions for extensions of time will be sought by the parties. Entered by Mag. Judge Evans on 2/23/06. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/24/2006)

Feb. 23, 2006

Feb. 23, 2006

18

MOTION to Dismiss by Defendant City of Springfield. Responses due by 6/26/2006 (Lang, James) (Entered: 06/12/2006)

June 12, 2006

June 12, 2006

19

MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant City of Springfield. Responses due by 7/3/2006 (Lang, James) (Entered: 06/12/2006)

June 12, 2006

June 12, 2006

20

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Plaintiffs Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer, Scott Allin. Responses due by 7/14/2006 (Baker, James) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

June 30, 2006

June 30, 2006

TEXT ORDER: The Court has received Plaintiffs' Motion for an Extension of Time (d/e 20). Plaintiffs seek until July 7, 2006, to respond to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendant has no objection to the Motion. THEREFORE, Plaintiffs' Motion is ALLOWED. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file their response up to and including July 7, 2006. Entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 6/30/2006. (CT, ilcd) (Entered: 06/30/2006)

June 30, 2006

June 30, 2006

TEXT ORDER: The Court has received Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss (d/e 18). Pursuant to an Order entered in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois on March 15, 2006, in Case No. 05−70233, the Defendant moves to dismiss with prejudice all claims for monetary damages accruing to Plaintiff Gregory Shaffer until January 19, 2005. See Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss, Ex. A, U.S. Bankruptcy Court's Order on Trustee's "Motion for Authority to Settle Cause of Action". On January 19, 2005, Plaintiff Shaffer filed for bankruptcy. The March 15, 2006, Bankruptcy Order approved the sale to the City of Springfield of certain property of the bankruptcy estate consisting of claims of Shaffer for monetary damages accruing to Shaffer until the date his petition for bankruptcy was filed, arising from his employment as a police officer for the City of Springfield, as set forth in the instant case. THEREFORE, Defendant's Motion (d/e 18) is ALLOWED. All claims for monetary damages accruing to Plaintiff Shaffer before January 19, 2005, are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff Shaffer, however, remains a party to the case. Entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 7/6/2006. (cc: all counsel) (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 07/06/2006)

July 6, 2006

July 6, 2006

21

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Plaintiffs Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer, Scott Allin. Responses due by 7/21/2006 (Baker, James) (Entered: 07/07/2006)

July 7, 2006

July 7, 2006

TEXT ORDER: The Court has received the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File in Excess of Page Limitations (d/e 21). The Plaintiffs request to file their memorandum in opposition to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in excess of the Court's page limitations. The Motion (d/e 21) is ALLOWED. Entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 7/7/2006. (cc: all counse1) (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 07/07/2006)

July 7, 2006

July 7, 2006

22

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer, Scott Allin. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix # 2 Affidavit Groesch# 3 Affidavit Allin# 4 Exhibit Harris Dep# 5 Exhibit Schluter Dep# 6 Exhibit Kliment dep# 7 Exhibit Larkin dep# 8 Exhibit McNeil dep# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 3A# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 13 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 14 Exhibit Exhibit 7# 15 Exhibit Exhibit 7A# 16 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 17 Exhibit Husch &Eppenberger# 18 Exhibit Harris Dep. 00−MR−180# 19 Exhibit 00−MR−180# 20 Exhibit Groesch charge# 21 Exhibit Allin charge)(Baker, James) (Entered: 07/10/2006)

July 10, 2006

July 10, 2006

23

CERTIFICATE of Compliance . (Baker, James) (Entered: 07/10/2006)

July 10, 2006

July 10, 2006

24

REPLY to Response to Motion re 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant City of Springfield. (Lang, James) (Entered: 07/24/2006)

July 24, 2006

July 24, 2006

TEXT ORDER: Due to the Court's schedule, a ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment will not be filed before the scheduled pretrial hearing, currently set for October 2, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. The parties do not object to continuing both the pretrial hearing and trial to permit full consideration of the materials submitted on the summary judgment motion. THEREFORE, the Court hereby CANCELS the pretrial conference set for October 2, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., and trial set for October 3, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., and RESCHEDULES the pretrial conference for October 27, 2006, at 11:30 a.m., and trial for November 7, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. The Court refers the matter to Magistrate Judge Cudmore to conduct a settlement conference. Entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 9/15/2006. (cc: all counsel) (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/18/2006)

Sept. 15, 2006

Sept. 15, 2006

TEXT ORDER: Magistrate Judge Charles Evans recuses himself from this case and transfers case to Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore for all further proceedings. Entered by Mag. Judge Evans on 9/18/06. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 09/18/2006)

Sept. 18, 2006

Sept. 18, 2006

MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Byron G. Cudmore: Telephone conference held with Attorneys James Baker, James Lang, and Jennifer Johnson. By joint request, the Court schedules a mediation in chambers in Springfield, Illinois, on Friday, 10/13/2006, at 9:30 a.m. The following parties / representatives are directed to be personally present with full authority to compromise claims(s): Plaintiffs Kevin Groesch and Scott Allin to be personally present; Plaintiff Greg Shaffer to be available by telephone; Defendant to have representative present other than counsel; Defendant to make counter−proposal to Plaintiff by 9/29/2006. Confidential mediation statements to be submitted to Judge Cudmore via fax only to 217/492−4596 by 5:00 p.m. on 10/6/2006. (LB, ilcd) (Entered: 09/18/2006)

Sept. 18, 2006

Sept. 18, 2006

MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Byron G. Cudmore: Mediation held. Defendant to present settlement proposal to City Council in Executive Session 10/17/2006. All current deadlines cancelled. Status Report concerning settlement to be filed by 10/19/2006. (LB, ilcd) (Entered: 10/13/2006)

Oct. 13, 2006

Oct. 13, 2006

UTILITY: Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 10/19/2006. (LB, ilcd) (Entered: 10/13/2006)

Oct. 13, 2006

Oct. 13, 2006

25

STATUS REPORT by City of Springfield. (Lang, James) (Entered: 10/18/2006)

Oct. 18, 2006

Oct. 18, 2006

TEXT ORDER: The Court has received the Defendant's Settlement Report (d/e 25). The Report represents that a settlement has not been achieved in this case. The Court therefore resets the final pretrial conference for February 26, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., and the trial for March 6, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.Entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 10/18/2006. (cc: all counsel)(MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/18/2006)

Oct. 18, 2006

Oct. 18, 2006

28

NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Frank Martinez on behalf of City of Springfield (Martinez, Frank) (Entered: 01/09/2007)

Jan. 9, 2007

Jan. 9, 2007

TEXT ORDER: Telephonic status conference set by Court for January 18, 2007, at 1:00 p.m. Court will initiate call. Entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 1/16/07. (ME, ilcd) (Entered: 01/16/2007)

Jan. 16, 2007

Jan. 16, 2007

MINUTE ENTRY: Status conference held. Both parties appeared telephonically. The Plaintiffs appeared by attorney John Baker. The Defendant appeared by attorneys Frank Martinez and James Lang. The Court apprised the parties of the pending Supreme Court case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. Inc., and requested their views whether the instant case should be stayed until the Supreme Court rules on the Ledbetter case. Ledbetter, 421 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 126 S.Ct. 2965 (U.S. Jan. 26, 2006) (No. 05−1074). The parties are directed to advise the Court on or before January 31, 2007. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 01/19/2007)

Jan. 18, 2007

Jan. 18, 2007

29

STATUS REPORT by City of Springfield. (Lang, James) (Entered: 01/29/2007)

Jan. 29, 2007

Jan. 29, 2007

TEXT ORDER: The Court has received the parties' Joint Statement In Regard to Postponement (d/e 29). The parties seek to stay the trial in this case until after the Supreme Court issues its decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Inc., 126 S.Ct. 2965 (2006). The Court finds good cause to stay the matter pending a decision in Ledbetter. THEREFORE, this case is STAYED pending the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter. A further status conference is set for July 16, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.Entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 2/02/2007. (cc: all counsel)(MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 02/02/2007)

Feb. 2, 2007

Feb. 2, 2007

TEXT ORDER: The Supreme Court has issued its decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &Rubber Co., Inc., S.Ct., 2007 WL 1528298 (May 29, 2007). In light of Ledbetter, the Court will revisit its Opinion (d/e 26) on the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. If the parties wish to submit memoranda addressing the impact of Ledbetter on the present case, they are to do so by June 25, 2007. Entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 5/31/2007. (cc: all counsel)(MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 05/31/2007)

May 31, 2007

May 31, 2007

30

MEMORANDUM in Support re 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment Supplemental Memorandum filed by Defendant City of Springfield. (Lang, James) (Entered: 06/05/2007)

June 5, 2007

June 5, 2007

31

MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment Supplemental Pursuant to May 31, 2007 Order filed by Plaintiffs Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer, Scott Allin. (Baker, James) (Entered: 06/25/2007)

June 25, 2007

June 25, 2007

33

JUDGMENT entered in favor of the City of Springfield and against Greg Shaffer, Kevin Groesch, and Scott Allin pursuant to the Court's Opinion entered on 7/11/2007. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 07/11/2007)

July 11, 2007

July 11, 2007

U S Court of Appeal Fees received in the amount of $ 455.00; receipt number S009159 regarding Notice of Appeal [d/e 34] filed by Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer and Scott Allin. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 08/10/2007)

Aug. 10, 2007

Aug. 10, 2007

35

Short Record of Appeal Sent to U S Court of Appeals regarding [d/e 34] Notice of Appeal (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 08/15/2007)

Aug. 15, 2007

Aug. 15, 2007

36

NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from U S Court of Appeals regarding Notice of Appeal [d/e 34] filed by Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer, and Scott Allin. U S Court of Appeals Case Number is 07−2932 (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 08/23/2007)

Aug. 15, 2007

Aug. 15, 2007

37

MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Defendant City of Springfield. Responses due by 5/12/2008 (Lang, James) (Entered: 04/23/2008)

April 23, 2008

April 23, 2008

TEXT ORDER by Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore: Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record 37 ALLOWED. Attorney James A Lang terminated as counsel in this cause. (LB, ilcd) (Entered: 04/23/2008)

April 23, 2008

April 23, 2008

38

MOTION to Withdraw Record on Appeal by Defendant City of Springfield. Responses due by 10/25/2010 (Martinez, Frank) (Entered: 10/06/2010)

Oct. 6, 2010

Oct. 6, 2010

TEXT ORDER entered by Chief Judge Michael P. McCuskey on 8/12/10. This case is reassigned to Chief Judge Michael P. McCuskey for further proceedings as the Chief Judge deems appropriate in the proper administration of justice. The case will remain a Springfield Division case, and the referral Magistrate Judge shall remain the same.(MC, ilcd) (Entered: 10/07/2010)

Oct. 7, 2010

Oct. 7, 2010

TEXT ORDER: Defendant City of Springfield's Motion to Withdraw the Record on Appeal (d/e 38) is ALLOWED. Entered by Chief Judge Michael P. McCuskey on 10/8/2010. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/08/2010)

Oct. 8, 2010

Oct. 8, 2010

39

Letter acknowledging receipt of the Appeal Record by M Carlisle for attorney Frank Martinez. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 10/15/2010)

Oct. 14, 2010

Oct. 14, 2010

40

NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT by U S Court of Appeals re 34 Notice of Appeal. Argument set for Friday, 1/14/2011 at 9:30 a.m. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/13/2010)

Dec. 13, 2010

Dec. 13, 2010

41

Request from U S Court of Appeals for Long Record regarding d/e 34 Notice of Appeal. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/14/2010)

Dec. 14, 2010

Dec. 14, 2010

Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to U S Court of Appeals regarding d/e 34 Notice of Appeal (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2010)

Dec. 16, 2010

Dec. 16, 2010

42

Letter of Transmittal to U S Court of Appeals regarding d/e 34 Notice of Appeal. Appeal Record sent on a CD consisting of 6 Volumes of Pleadings via UPS, tracking # 1Z 647 649 03 1005 236 4. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/16/2010)

Dec. 16, 2010

Dec. 16, 2010

Letter of Transmittal from U S Court of Appeals regarding d/e 34 Notice of Appeal. U S Court of Appeals acknowledged receipt of the Appeal Record consisting of 6 volumes of pleadings. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 12/23/2010)

Dec. 22, 2010

Dec. 22, 2010

43

NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF MANDATE by U S Court of Appeals. (MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/19/2011)

April 19, 2011

April 19, 2011

44

MANDATE of U S Court of Appeals as to d/e 34 Notice of Appeal filed by Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer and Scott Allin. The judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED IN PART, with respect to the dismissal of all claims arising before November 10, 2003 and with respect to Officer Shaffer's claims for monetary damages before January 19, 2005. In all other respects the judgment is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion. (Attachment: # 1 Judgment)(MAS, ilcd) (Entered: 04/19/2011)

April 19, 2011

April 19, 2011

TEXT ORDER entered by Chief Judge Michael P. McCuskey on 12/27/2011. This case is reassigned to Judge Sue E. Myerscough for further proceedings. (MB, ilcd) (Entered: 12/27/2011)

Dec. 27, 2011

Dec. 27, 2011

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Sue E. Myerscough: STATUS CONFERENCE. Plaintiffs represented by Attorney James Baker. Defendant represented by Attoreney Mark Cullen. Discussion held regarding trial date, mediation and/or settlement. Parties are to advise Court by 2/10/2012 if they are interested in mediation. Hearing adjourned. (Court Reporter KS.) (CT, ilcd) (Entered: 01/31/2012)

Jan. 30, 2012

Jan. 30, 2012

45

STATUS REPORT by City of Springfield. (DM, ilcd) (Entered: 02/13/2012)

Feb. 10, 2012

Feb. 10, 2012

TEXT ORDER: At the request of the parties (see d/e 45), the deadline by which the parties shall advise the Court if they are interested in mediation is extended to March 2, 2012. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 02/14/2012. (DM, ilcd) (Entered: 02/14/2012)

Feb. 14, 2012

Feb. 14, 2012

46

STATUS REPORT by Scott Allin, Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer. (Baker, James) (Entered: 03/05/2012)

March 5, 2012

March 5, 2012

TEXT ORDER: Because the parties have not advised the Court that they are interested in mediation, this matter is set for a final pretrial conference on June 4, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. and set for jury trial on July 3, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. The parties are advised to read the General Rules for Conduct of Counsel in the Courtroom and During Trial in Proceedings before U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough, available at the Court's website: www.ilcd.uscourts.gov. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 03/06/2012. (DM, ilcd) (Entered: 03/06/2012)

March 6, 2012

March 6, 2012

47

MOTION to Continue (Reschedule) the Final Pretrial Conference by Plaintiffs Scott Allin, Kevin Groesch, Greg Shaffer. Responses due by 6/7/2012 (Baker, James) (Entered: 05/21/2012)

May 21, 2012

May 21, 2012

TEXT ORDER: Plaintiffs' Motion Requesting the Final Pretrial Conference Be Rescheduled 47 is GRANTED. The final pretrial conference set for June 4, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. is VACATED and RESET for June 18, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. The case remains set on the July trial calendar. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 05/22/2012. (DM, ilcd) (Entered: 05/22/2012)

May 22, 2012

May 22, 2012

48

NOTICE of Appearance of Attorney by Geannette S Wittendorf on behalf of City of Springfield (Wittendorf, Geannette) (Entered: 05/30/2012)

May 30, 2012

May 30, 2012

49

MOTION to Continue the Pre−Trial Conference Date and Trial Date by Defendant City of Springfield. Responses due by 6/18/2012 (Wittendorf, Geannette) (Entered: 05/30/2012)

May 30, 2012

May 30, 2012

MINUTE ENTRY: Hearing held June 6, 2012 before Judge Sue E. Myerscough by telephone conference in chambers. James Baker present on behalf of Plaintiff. Geannette Wittendorf present on behalf of Defendant. Counsel advised the Court that the parties are discussing settlement and request a continuance of the pretrial and trial settings. The pretrial conference set for June 18, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. and the jury trial set for July 3, 2012 are VACATED. The parties are DIRECTED to file a status report on or before July 9, 2012. Defendant's Motion to Continue 49 is DENIED AS MOOT. (No Court Reporter present; Proceeding not Recorded). (DM, ilcd) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

June 6, 2012

June 6, 2012

50

STATUS REPORT by City of Springfield. (Wittendorf, Geannette) (Entered: 07/03/2012)

July 3, 2012

July 3, 2012

TEXT ORDER: The parties are DIRECTED to file a status report on or before September 10, 2012. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 9/4/2012. (MJ, ilcd) (Entered: 09/04/2012)

Sept. 4, 2012

Sept. 4, 2012

51

STATUS REPORT by City of Springfield. (Wittendorf, Geannette) (Entered: 09/05/2012)

Sept. 5, 2012

Sept. 5, 2012

53

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. Each party to bear its own cost. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/16/2012. (DM, ilcd) (Entered: 10/16/2012)

Oct. 16, 2012

Oct. 16, 2012

32

OPINION entered by Judge Jeanne E. Scott on 7/11/2007. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (d/e 19) is now ALLOWED as to all claims. The Court vacates the portion of the December 29, 2006, Opinion (d/e 26) that denied summary judgment and directs that judgment be entered in favor of Defendant. The Court cancels the status conference set for July 16, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. All pending motions are denied as moot. The case is closed. (MAS, ilcd) (MAS, ilcd).

July 11, 2007

July 11, 2007

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 27, 2004

Closing Date: 2012

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are white police officers employed by the Springfield, IL, police department.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

City of Springfield, IL (Sangamon), City

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Voluntary Dismissal

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination-area:

Hiring

Pay / Benefits

Seniority

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

White

Affected Gender:

Male