Walker v. The Dow Chemical Company
1:24-cv-12219
| E.D. Mich. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Nine separate employment discrimination cases were filed by Attorney Carla Aikens against Dow Chemical Co. from July 2023 through May 2025, all assigned to Judge Thomas L. Ludington in the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division.
- The Jones case served as the bellwether and was marked by numerous discovery disputes.
- Plaintiffs Sushma Jones and Charles Baston sought Judge Ludington's recusal, arguing potential bias based on his father's former position as President of Dow Corning Corp. (a Dow affiliate over 35 years ago) and Judge Ludington’s attendance at a local high school named after Dow’s founder.
- Both Jones and Baston filed motions and supporting declarations in May 2025 seeking recusal; Jones also petitioned the Sixth Circuit for a writ of mandamus to require recusal.
- Similar demands for recusal would require Judge Ludington's withdrawal from all current and future Dow Chemical cases.
- In response to the pending recusal motions and quickly approaching deadlines, the court vacated all scheduling orders in the nine cases, pending guidance from the Sixth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Ludington must recuse due to his father's former role at Dow Corning and his own high school attendance | Judge is biased because of family ties and the school's association with Dow | Judge's prior family and school ties do not create bias | No ruling yet; issue pending before Sixth Circuit |
| Whether discovery and pre-trial schedules should continue while recusal is unresolved | Pending recusal motion affects court's ability to rule on other motions | N/A (not specified in order) | All scheduling orders vacated until recusal resolved |
| Whether motions to adjourn scheduling orders in individual cases should be granted | N/A (not raised by Plaintiffs) | N/A | Denied as moot |
| Whether other pending motions in these cases can be decided before recusal is resolved | Recusal impacts ability to rule on case motions | N/A | No motions will be resolved until recusal decided |
Key Cases Cited
(none—no cases cited with official reporter citations in this opinion)