Lee v. Cook County, Ill.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5850
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Three Cook County prison employees allege promotion discrimination against black workers under Title VII, joined with nine others in a single suit.
- District Judge Castillo dismissed the multi-plaintiff action without prejudice and ordered individual suits within 40 days.
- Plaintiffs did not file until May 2009; two were assigned to different judges and promptly dismissed as untimely.
- EEOC right-to-sue letters were issued in March 2008 with a 90-day filing window; initial timely suit was May 14, 2008, but new suits post-September 2008 were untimely.
- The Seventh Circuit held dismissal without prejudice tolls the statute of limitations for purposes of re-filing, but it does not reset deadlines; timely appeals or replacement suits were not pursued.
- Greco, counsel for plaintiffs, faced multiple procedural failings leading to sanctions and a reprimand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new suits filed after a dismissal without prejudice toll the statute of limitations | Greco contends tolling extended filing period | Defendants argue tolling does not reset deadlines; timely filing required within 90 days | Dismissal tolling does not reset limitations; suits untimely |
| Whether permissive joinder under Rule 20 permits consolidation of claims with common question | Common question about promotion discrimination exists for all plaintiffs | Rule 20 requires severance if distinct issues predominate | Rule 20 permits permissive joinder when common question exists; not required to prevail on all issues |
| Whether the district court erred by misapplying Rule 21 after dismissal without prejudice | Castillo violated Rule 21 by dismissing and directing new filings | Judicial order to file new actions can reset process but did not | Dismissal without prejudice and directing replacement suits violated Rule 21 |
| Whether equitable tolling or attorney conduct excuses late filing | Equitable tolling should apply due to extraordinary circumstances | No extraordinary circumstances; attorney negligence not tolling | Equitable tolling not warranted; malpractice concerns remedy the misconduct |
| Whether the appeal process or sanctions against counsel affect the outcome | Inaction and delays invalidly punish plaintiffs | Counsel's conduct undermines proceedings; sanctions appropriate | Court reprimands counsel and imposes fine; sanctions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Elmore v. Henderson, 227 F.3d 1009 (7th Cir.2000) (dismissal without prejudice tolling rule)
- Dupuy v. McEwen, 495 F.3d 807 (7th Cir.2007) (continuing tolling principles after dismissal)
- Muzikowski v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 322 F.3d 918 (7th Cir.2003) (tolling and filing strategies in multi-party actions)
- Newell v. Hanks, 283 F.3d 827 (7th Cir.2002) (limitations and tolling considerations)
- Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 586 F.3d 500 (7th Cir.2009) (appealability of dismissal decisions)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (S. Ct.2007) (timeliness and finality of judgments; limits on tolling)
- Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (U.S.1989) (judicial action affecting timely filing)
- Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549 (S. Ct.2010) (diligence and extraordinary circumstances; equitable tolling standard)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (S. Ct.2005) (equitable tolling framework for diligence and extraordinary obstacles)
- Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 586 F.3d 500 (7th Cir.2009) (appealability and finality after dismissal)