Blue v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 159
676 F.3d 579
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Blue, an administrative assistant at IBEW for 30+ years, alleged retaliation for opposing discrimination against an African-American electrician Phillips.
- Blue learned of Phillips's MEOC complaint and discovered a white electrician signed the referral book without paying an initiation fee, prompting her to question Harrelson.
- Harrelson allegedly retaliated by stripping Blue of duties, denying overtime, creating a hostile environment, and later escalating discipline after Blue answered MEOC questions directly.
- MEOC proceedings progressed; Blue sent her MEOC responses directly to the MEOC and IBEW's lawyer, leading to additional disciplinary actions later vacated by Harrelson's successor.
- A district court admitted four MEOC documents at trial to prove retaliatory motive; Blue prevailed at trial with a jury verdict for damages.
- Post-trial, IBEW filed untimely Rule 50(b) and 59(a) motions; the court extended the deadline, Blue did not object, and the notices of appeal were filed after the extended period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do untimely Rule 50/59 motions toll the appeal period? | IBEW argues tolling applies under some circuits. | Blue did not object; untimely motions should toll. | Untimely motions do not toll; jurisdiction limited to denials. |
| Did the district court have authority to rule on untimely motions? | District court could hear post-trial motions and rule on them. | Court's extension preserves consideration of merits. | District court had authority, but timing tolling did not extend appeal period. |
| Was the district court's admission of MEOC Phillips-file evidence proper? | MEOC documents were probative of causal link to retaliation. | Evidence was cumulative/prejudicial. | No abuse of discretion; admission was proper under Rule 403. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of retaliation to support the verdict? | Evidence, including timing, supported retaliation. | Evidence insufficient or improperly weighed. | Evidence was more than enough to sustain the verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (statutory deadline for appeals is jurisdictional)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (rules-based jurisdictional questions; limits on jurisdictional labeling)
- Browder v. Ill. Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257 (1978) (extension of time rules; tolling considerations)
- Lizardo v. United States, 619 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2010) (untimely Rule 50/59 motions and tolling; Third Circuit view)
- Trepanier v. City of Blue Island, 364 Fed.Appx. 260 (7th Cir. 2010) (treatment of late Rule 60 relief in tolling context)
- United States v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299 (7th Cir. 1992) (untimely Rule 50 motions treated under Rule 60)
- Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (Rule 403 balancing and admissibility of evidence)