Case 3:09-cv-00133-DRH-PMF Document 48 Filed 10/21/10 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #740
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BETTY D. COOK,
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Now before the Court are the parties’ motions in limines (Docs. 39 & 45)
and the responses (Docs. 44 & 47). Based on the following, the Court grants in part
and denies in part both motions in limines.
First, the Court addresses IDOC’s motion in limine (Doc. 39). First,
IDOC moves in limine to exclude evidence regarding political affiliation or political
activism of the parties or witnesses as irrelevant. Cook responds that this evidence
is relevant as the information goes to the credibility of IDOC’s employees/witnesses.
The Court denies this request. Cook’s theory of the case encompasses both age
discrimination as well as political influence as it relates to issues of age and thus this
information is relevant.
Second, IDOC moves in limine to exclude evidence regarding personal
relationships the witnesses and in particular the former warden. Cook responds that
this evidence is relevant as it goes to the credibility and bias of the witnesses. The
Page 1 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-00133-DRH-PMF Document 48 Filed 10/21/10 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #741
Court also denies this request. Cook’s theory of the case, similar to the first issue
above, also includes assertions that Democratic friends wanted certain younger
individuals moved up in the counseling department and the only way this could be
achieved was to get rid of the “older” employees such as Cook, thus, evidence of
personal relationships is relevant.
Next, IDOC moves to exclude evidence or claims that are beyond the
scope of Cook’s EEOC charge including evidence of Warden Bates’ May 2008
statements as the statement were not included in her EEOC charge. Cook responds
that Bates’ comment was not contained in her charge because at the time that she
made her EEOC charge Warden Bates had not made the statement and that when
Bates made the statement the EEOC was supposed to be investigating her charge.
Furthermore, Cook contends that Bates’ statement reasonable relates to her EEOC
charge and it stems from the allegations of her EEOC charge.
A plaintiff generally cannot bring a claim in an ADEA lawsuit that was
not alleged in the EEOC charge, and, while not a jurisdictional requirement, it is a
prerequisite with which a plaintiff must comply before filing suit. Cheek v. W. & S.
Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 1994). This requirement is to ensure
that the employer has notice about the particular challenged conduct and provides
an opportunity for settlement of the dispute. Id. (citations omitted). A plaintiff,
however, may proceed on a claim not explicitly mentioned in his EEOC charge “if the
claim is like or reasonably related to the EEOC charges, and the claim in the
Page 2 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-00133-DRH-PMF Document 48 Filed 10/21/10 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #742
complaint reasonably could be expected to grow out of an EEOC investigation of the
charge.” Id. (citing Peters v. Renaissance Hotel Operating Co., 307 F.3d 535,
551 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted)). At the very least,
the claims should involve the same conduct and implicate the same individuals in
order to be considered “reasonably related” to the allegations in the EEOC complaint.
See Cheek v. Peabody Coal Co., 97 F.3d 200, 202-03 (7th Cir. 1996). The
Seventh Circuit applies a liberal standard in determining if new claims are
reasonably related to those claims mentioned in the EEOC charge. Farrell v. Butler
Univ., 421 F.3d 609, 616 (7th Cir. 2005).
The Court agrees with Cook. Warden Bates’ May 2008 statement is
relevant to the issues in this case and are like or reasonably related to the allegations
of discrimination contained in the original EEOC charge. The statements relate to
why Cook’s caseload was going to be changed another time and are similar to her
allegations in her EEOC charge and throughout this case. Thus, the Court denies
Lastly, IDOC moves in limine to exclude evidence concerning actions
taken by the State Employment Retirement Board (“SERS”) with regard to Cook’s
lack of pay during her leave of absence. IDOC argues that the SERS is a separate
state entity not within the purview of the IDOC and the evidence should be barred.
Cook maintains that just because the SERS is a separate state entity does not make
the actions of that agency any different from the IDOC as they both are run by the
Page 3 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-00133-DRH-PMF Document 48 Filed 10/21/10 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #743
State of Illinois. The Court agrees with IDOC. The Court finds that the SERS’
decision regarding Cook’s pay while she was on leave is not attributable to the IDOC
and therefore evidence of such is not admissible. Thus, the Court grants this
Next, the Court addresses Cook’s motion in limine (Doc. 45). First,
Cook moves the Court to exclude any evidence of Cook’s compensation once she was
forced to retire from the IDOC as that would be a violation of the collateral source
rule. The IDOC responds that in ADEA actions, such as this one, courts have
discretion to deduct or not deduct payments from an ADEA back pay award and the
relevance of the collateral source payments and their scope will not be apparent until
after Cook testifies. The Court does not find evidence of Cook’s compensation after
she retired, payment of medical bills, social security income, pension or retirement
income as collateral source. Thus, the Court denies this request.
Second, Cook moves in limine to exclude evidence of problems that
Cook had other than her mental and physical problems that she suffered due to work
stress from the discrimination of IDOC as that evidence is irrelevant. IDOC argues
that this request should be denied as the testimony of Cook’s experts is unknown
because the depositions have not been completed. The Court grants the motion. The
Court excludes evidence of unrelated illnesses or injuries. However, the Court will
allow this type of evidence if testimony is elicited from Cook or her medical providers
that demonstrate relevance such as aggravation of preexisting conditions.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part IDOC’s
Page 4 of 5
Case 3:09-cv-00133-DRH-PMF Document 48 Filed 10/21/10 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #744
motion in limine (Doc. 39). Further, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in
part Cook’s motion in limine (Doc. 45). The Court reminds the parties that this case
is set for Final Pretrial Conference on November 19, 2010 at 11:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 21st day of October, 2010.
David R. Herndon
United States District Court
Page 5 of 5