Search form

Limiting Plaintiff’s Discovery on Similarly Situated Employees Reasonable, Federal Court Finds

By Paul Patten
  • April 29, 2016

Limiting a plaintiff’s pretrial discovery can be the key to defending an employment discrimination lawsuit. This point was aptly demonstrated in a federal appellate court ruling approving a district court’s denial of wide-ranging discovery and its summary judgment dismissal of an employee’s discrimination suit. Kuttner v. Zaruba, No. 14-3812 (7th Cir. Apr. 14, 2016). However, Judge Richard Posner’s dissent illustrates that judges have widely differing views on the scope of pretrial discovery in discrimination lawsuits.

The Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

Background

Under many of the most-litigated employee discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, plaintiffs can prove their case through either a “direct” or an “indirect” method. Lacking direct proof of discrimination, to successfully plead a case under the indirect method, plaintiffs must show that “comparator” individuals who were not in the relevant “protected class” were treated better than the plaintiff.

Susan Kuttner was a deputy sheriff employed with the DuPage County, Illinois, Sheriff’s Department. In February 2010, Kuttner was discharged after she attempted to collect a loan on behalf of her boyfriend while wearing her sheriff’s uniform, in violation of departmental rules.

Thereafter, Kuttner filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charge and a subsequent lawsuit against Sheriff John Zaruba, alleging discrimination based on her sex. Kuttner’s attorney requested the personnel files of 30 of Kuttner’s coworkers, using an overbroad understanding of “similarly situated” employees, and claimed 25 incidents of comparable misconduct by Kuttner’s male coworkers dating back to her hiring date in 1998. According to Judge Posner’s dissent, the alleged misconduct involved co-deputies who illegally used drugs and engaged in sexual misconduct, one who dressed his girlfriend in his uniform, and one who broke into his girlfriend’s house while in uniform and vandalized her property.

The judge found the plaintiff’s attorney’s discovery requests unduly burdensome and restricted discovery to information post-January 1, 2006, eliminating from consideration 21 of the 25 allegedly comparable incidents. Apparently also overreaching was the plaintiff’s attorney’s request for the personnel file of the Sheriff’s wife.

The judge evaluated the four incidents of alleged misconduct for the period beginning January 1, 2006, and found them not comparable to the plaintiff’s misconduct. The judge also restricted the information Kuttner’s attorney could elicit during a deposition of a key defense witness to misconduct of which the witness had personal knowledge.

In the end, Kuttner failed to adduce evidence of sex discrimination, so the judge entered summary judgment for the sheriff. Following the disposition of all of Kuttner’s claims, Kuttner appealed the District Court’s discovery limitations.

Reasonable Limitations

A divided Seventh Circuit found the discovery limitations imposed by the lower court were reasonable.

The Court, in a decision authored by Judge Diane Sykes, held that a judge may restrict discovery to focus on information reasonably calculated to capture relevant evidence, and that recency is a form of relevance. Furthermore, limiting deposition questions to non-hearsay information was a reasonable response to Kuttner’s counsel’s abusive behavior, the Court said.

Judge Posner’s dissent focused on the apparent factual relevancy of the pre-2006 evidence sought by Kuttner, and the arbitrariness of using January 1, 2006, as a hard discovery cutoff. In particular, Judge Posner noted that there was no indication that evidence post-January 1, 2006, was more probative than the earlier evidence sought by Kuttner, as the Sheriff’s Department had not changed its disciplinary standards, procedures, rules, or supervisors, or otherwise “cleaned up its act.” Judge Posner also noted that limiting discovery as a response to Kuttner’s attorney’s abusive actions, rather than chastising or fining the attorney, punished Kuttner for her attorney’s bad behavior.

***

It is unclear to what extent the holding in Kuttner is restricted to the unique facts of the case, including Kuttner’s attorney’s requesting information related to Sheriff Zaruba’s wife. The most important lesson from Kuttner may be that although judges will disagree over what constitutes reasonable discovery requests and relevant evidence, they will step in to limit the scope of discovery when they feel an attorney is engaging in abusive tactics, such as a fishing expedition for comparators.

In light of the variability in how judges perceive discovery requests, employers who are considering disciplining or terminating employees for misconduct should continue to evaluate those decisions while keeping in mind the organization’s treatment of other employees who engaged in similar or more severe misconduct.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer questions about Kuttner.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 14, 2018

New Version of Model FCRA Summary of Rights Released; And You Have One Week to Comply

September 14, 2018

A new model “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act” disclosure form document was released on September 12, 2018, by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Employers and background check companies should begin using the new form by September 21, 2018. The federal agency responsible for oversight and... Read More

September 12, 2018

Maryland Employers, Are You Ready? New Sexual Harassment Law Takes Effect October 1

September 12, 2018

Maryland’s “Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act of 2018” takes effect on October 1, 2018. The Act prohibits certain waivers related to an employee’s future sexual harassment claims and future retaliation claims for making a sexual harassment claim. It also requires employers with at least 50 employees to complete a survey... Read More

September 5, 2018

Reminder: New York City Employers Must Distribute Fact Sheet, Post Notice on Sexual Harassment Law by Sept. 6

September 5, 2018

Beginning September 6, 2018, all New York City employers must distribute the New York City Commission on Human Rights’ mandatory fact sheet on the “Stop Sexual Harassment in NYC Act” to all new hires. Employers also may wish to distribute the fact sheet to existing employees, even though that is not expressly required by the law or by... Read More

Related Practices