Walker v. The Dow Chemical Company, 1:24-cv-12219

Nine related employment discrimination cases against Dow Chemical Company were filed between July 2023 and May 2025 in the Eastern District of Michigan, all assigned to Judge Thomas L. Ludington.
The Jones case served as the lead (bellwether) and has involved extensive discovery disputes.
Plaintiffs Jones and Baston, represented by Carla Aikens, sought Judge Ludington’s recusal, citing past ties to Dow Corning Corporation (his deceased father’s previous employer) and Judge Ludington’s attendance at a high school named after Dow's founder.
Motions for recusal and related declarations were filed by plaintiffs in multiple cases, and a petition for a writ of mandamus on the issue was submitted to the Sixth Circuit.
The court recognized that resolution of the recusal motions could affect all pending matters in these cases and vacated all scheduling orders until the recusal question is resolved.
Motions to adjourn or extend deadlines in these cases were denied as moot pending the recusal decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judge's Recusal	Jones & Baston: Ludington is biased due to his father's former role at Dow and attendance at Dow-named high school	(Not specified in the order)	Pending Sixth Circuit review; court vacates all schedules awaiting resolution
Proceedings During Recusal Motion	Proceedings should pause until recusal issue resolved	(Not specified in the order)	Scheduling orders vacated, motions denied as moot
Effect on Deadlines	Deadlines should be stayed to ensure fairness	(Not specified in the order)	All deadlines in the nine cases are vacated
Authority to Rule Before Recusal	Court lacks authority to decide substantive motions before recusal resolved	(Not specified in the order)	Court will not rule on any other motions until recusal decided