Case: EEOC v. SYNCHRO-START PRODUCTS INC

1:98-cv-07047 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: Nov. 4, 1998

Closed Date: 1999

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In November 1998, the EEOC district office in Chicago, Illinois brought this suit against Synchro-Start Products, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Although the complaint is not available, the memorandum order denying the defendant's motion for dismissal states that a Hispanic male claimed that the defendant discriminated against him and other Hispanics and Polish people when imposed an English-Only rule in it facility in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Within a month of the complaint being filed, the defendant moved for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Ten months after the defendant's motion was denied, 29 F.Supp.2d 911 (N.D.Ill. 1999), the parties settled and a consent decree was entered in November 1999. Although the consent decree is unavailable, the docket states that its terms ran for one year and that the court retained jurisdiction for that year.

Summary Authors

Jason Chester (7/5/2007)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket

EEOC v. Synchro-Start Products

Nov. 10, 1999 Docket
9

Memorandum Opinion and Order [Regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss]

EEOC v. Synchro-Start Products

29 F.Supp.2d 911

Jan. 20, 1999 Order/Opinion
20

Judgment in a Civil Case

EEOC v. Synchro-Start Products

Nov. 10, 1999 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Judicial Independence, Employment Discrimination Studies Funded

Ann Nicholson

This brief article describes the Clearinghouse's award of $12,000 to build its collection of employment discrimination class actions brought by private plaintiffs. Nov. 1, 2008 https://law.wustl.edu/...

Under the Radar: Visibility and the Effects of Discrimination Lawsuits in Small and Large Firms

Carly Knight, Frank Dobbin, Alexandra Kalev

Research on how discrimination lawsuits affect corporate diversity has yielded mixed results. Qualitative studies highlight the limited efficacy of lawsuits in the typical workplace, finding that lit… April 1, 2022 https://cris.tau.ac.il/...

Docket

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT; jury demand - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of Jean Powers Kamp, Mary B. Manzo, John C. Hendrickson as attorney(s) for plaintiff ( No summons(es) issued.) (Documents: 1-1 through 1-3) (jmp) (Entered: 11/05/1998)

Nov. 4, 1998

SCHEDULE set on 11/13/98 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Status hearing set to 9:00 12/16/98 . Mailed notice (srn) (Entered: 11/17/1998)

Nov. 13, 1998
2

WAIVER of service of summons as to defendant sent on 11/5/98 (fce) (Entered: 12/10/1998)

Dec. 9, 1998
3

MOTION by defendant to dismiss this action because the complaint fails to state a claim ; Notice of motion (yap) (Entered: 12/17/1998)

Dec. 15, 1998
4

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant by Timothy J. Riordan, Ronald Ward Teeple and John L. Leonard (yap) (Entered: 12/17/1998)

Dec. 15, 1998
5

MEMORANDUM by defendant in support of motion to dismiss this action because the complaint fails to state a claim [3-1] (yap) (Entered: 12/17/1998) and continued to 1/20/99 at 9:00 a.m. Plaintiff's response to defendant's motion to dismiss [3-1] is to be filed on or before 1/13/99. Responses to plaintiff's discovery requests deferred pending ruling on the motion to dismiss. Mailed notice (yap) (Entered: 12/17/1998)

Dec. 15, 1998
7

RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendant's motion to dismiss [3-1] (Attachment); Notice of filing (yap) (Entered: 01/15/1999)

Jan. 13, 1999
8

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [1-1] by plaintiff; jury demand; Notice of filing (meg) (Entered: 01/19/1999)

Jan. 13, 1999
9

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (meg) (Entered: 01/22/1999)

Jan. 20, 1999
10

MINUTE ORDER of 1/20/99 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Synchro-Start's motion to dismiss is therefore denied [3-1], and it is ordered to answer the First Amended Complaint on or before 1/29/99. Mailed notice by judge's staff (meg) (Entered: 01/22/1999)

Jan. 20, 1999
11

ANSWER by defendant to first amended complaint; Notice of filing (meg) (Entered: 02/01/1999)

Jan. 29, 1999
12

MEMORANDUM ORDER (meg) (Entered: 02/08/1999)

Feb. 5, 1999
13

MINUTE ORDER of 2/5/99 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Enter Memorandum Order. For the reasons stated here, Answer paragraphs 1 and 6 are stricken. Synchro-Start's counsel are ordered to file in this Court's chambers a suitable amended to the Answer to correct those errors on or before 2/12/99 (without charging their cleint for that added work or for any related expense), failing which the corresponding paragraphs of the FAC will be deemed admitted in their entirety. Mailed notice by judge's staff (meg) (Entered: 02/08/1999)

Feb. 5, 1999
14

FIRST AMENDED ANSWER to first amend complaint [11-1] by defendant (meg) (Entered: 02/18/1999)

Feb. 12, 1999

SCHEDULE set on 6/3/99 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Status hearing set to 9:00 6/9/99 . Mailed notice (srn) (Entered: 06/03/1999)

June 3, 1999

SCHEDULE set on 6/9/99 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Status hearing held. Status hearing continued to 9:00 8/5/99 . No notice (srn) (Entered: 06/09/1999)

June 9, 1999

SCHEDULE set on 8/5/99 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Status hearing held. Status hearing continued to 9:00 9/14/99 . No notice (srn) (Entered: 08/05/1999)

Aug. 5, 1999
15

MINUTE ORDER of 9/2/99 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : Cross motion summary judgment are to be filed on or before 9/30/99. Cross responses are due 10/21/99. The 9/14/99 status hearing date is stricken. Mailed notice (meg) (Entered: 09/03/1999)

Sept. 2, 1999
16

STIPULATION regarding amending the briefing schedule on motions for summary judgment (ar) (Entered: 09/28/1999)

Sept. 23, 1999
17

MINUTE ORDER of 9/27/99 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur : In accordance with the stipulation filed 09/23/99, cross motions for summary judgment are to be filed on or before 10/15/99. Cross responses are due 11/05/99. Mailed notice (ar) (Entered: 09/28/1999)

Sept. 27, 1999
19

MINUTE ORDER of 11/10/99 by Hon. Milton I. Shadur: Enter Consent Decree. The consent decree shall be in effect for a period on one (1) year commencing on the date of entry of this consent decree, during which the court will retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing this consent decree. terminating case (Entered Consent Decree). (Attachment) Mailed notices by judge's staff (yap) (Entered: 11/10/1999)

Nov. 10, 1999
20

ENTERED JUDGMENT (yap) (Entered: 11/10/1999)

Nov. 10, 1999

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 4, 1998

Closing Date: 1999

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Synchro-Start Products, Inc., Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Availably 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

Order Duration: 1999 - 2000

Issues

General:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination-area:

Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)

Discrimination-basis:

National origin discrimination

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Indian

Other