Opinion
Case No. 16 C 10452
01-09-2017
TERESA WOJCIK, Plaintiff, v. CROWN CASTLE USA, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Crown Castle USA, Inc. ("Crown Castle") has just filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("ADs") to the Title VII action brought against it by its ex-employee Teresa Wojcik ("Wojcik"). This brief memorandum order is issued sua sponte to address this AD 1 advanced by Crown Castle:
To the extent that Count I complains of discrete acts of gender discrimination occurring outside the 180-day charge filing period for filing a Title VII claim, such acts are untimely and not actionable.
That AD obviously targets Complaint ¶ 10, which narrates a course of disparate treatment to which Wojcik was assertedly subjected throughout her employment with Crown Castle (Complaint ¶ 8, which has been admitted by Crown Castle, alleges that Wojcik "was the only female construction manager when she was hired and throughout her employment"). What AD 1 fails to recognize is that discriminatory acts that are not separately actionable because they are outside the statutory period for filing a Title VII claim are still appropriate for a plaintiff's pleading because they may be relevant for evidentiary purposes (for example, by being probative as to a discriminatory mindset on the part of an employer). Hence AD 1 is stricken as insufficient in law, while Complaint ¶ 10 remains in Wojcik's pleading.
/s/_________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge Date: January 9, 2017