Opinion
Case No. 03 C 3123
October 2, 2003
ORDER
Plaintiff Daniel Scott filed a one-count complaint charging defendant with gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c, et seq.; specifically, Scott claims that he was treated differently, to his detriment, than similarly situated female co-workers and was ultimately terminated by his employer because he was a man. In determining whether to appoint counsel in this case, the court must decide whether Scott could retain a lawyer on his own and whether, given the complexity of his claims and his ability to present his case, appointing a lawyer would make a difference in the outcome. Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319, 322 (7th Cir. 1993); Mell v. Human Dev. ctr., No. 99 C 6714, 2000 WL 656650, at *1 (N.D. 111. Mar. 23, 2000) (holding that Farmer test applies to Title VII cases). As a threshold matter, the court will not appoint counsel unless plaintiff presents a colorable claim, Maclin v. Freake, 650 F.2d 885, 887 (7th Cir. 1981), and makes "reasonable attempts to retain counsel " Jackson v. County of McLean, 953 F.2d 1070, 1073 (7th Cir. 1992). In this case, the court is satisfied that Scott's gender discrimination claim alleges sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that Scott's efforts to secure legal representation by contacting ten different attorneys about his case constitute reasonable attempts to retain counsel.
Before the court decides to appoint counsel, however, it must also consider factors such as: (1) the merits of plaintiff s claim, (2) plaintiffs ability to investigate crucial facts without assistance of counsel, (3) plaintiffs ability to present his case, (4) the complexity of the legal issues involved, and (5) whether the evidence will consist primarily of conflicting testimony, thus making it "more likely that the truth will be exposed where both sides are represented by those trained in the presentation of evidence and cross-examination." Maclin, 650 F.2d at 889; Jackson, 953 F.2d at 1072; N.D. HI. L.R. 83.36(c), Here, the court finds that Scott's gender discrimination charge merits proceeding beyond the complaint stage and that Scott, as a pro se litigant, will face significant disadvantages in his ability to investigate his claim and present his case against his former employer, a large health care company. Moreover, gender discrimination law under Title VTT is far from settled and often involves, as this case does, disputed facts and occurrences that are central to the outcome of the case. The court therefore concludes that these considerations weigh in favor of Scott obtaining court-appointed counsel to represent him in this case.