EAST ST. LOUIS - U.S. Steel must produce representatives to testify about policies and practices for disabled workers at its plant in Granite City, Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel has ruled.
On Sept. 23, Rosenstengel denied the employer’s motion for an order of protection against a deposition notice that plaintiff Darren Huffman served last year.
She wrote, “To the extent a specific question invades any privilege or protection, U.S. Steel may certainly object during the deposition on a question by question basis.
“The same is true for questions that seek legal conclusions, ask the corporate deponent to define a legal term of art, or seek attorney impressions and legal strategies.”
After such an objection, U.S. Steel could instruct its deponent not to answer, the judge said.
Bret Kleefuss and Michelle Faron of St. Louis filed a complaint for Huffman in 2022.
They claimed he ruptured a disc in the area of a portable incinerator in 2012, requiring surgery and seven months leave from work. They claimed he returned to work in the stocking area and moved to a ripping operator job. They claimed his disability caused him to struggle with aspects of the position and he took a short absence.
They claimed U. S. Steel refused to permit him to work in any other position.
They claimed he presented a release to work with a lifting restriction in 2015 but U.S. Steel allegedly declined to allow him to return to work in any position or on light duty.
They claimed U.S. Steel prevented disabled individuals from returning even when they became disabled on the job.
U.S. Steel counsel Adam Hirtz, of St. Louis County, moved to dismiss the complaint, stating the company no longer employed Huffman and he waited too long to file suit.
Faron opposed the motion, claiming U.S. Steel actively negotiated to resolve the case through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 2016 to 2022.
She claimed Huffman was still listed as an employee because he had a five year callback right under a collective bargaining agreement.
She claimed U.S. Steel mailed him a $4,000 bonus under a new bargaining agreement and he continued to attempt to return.
Hirtz moved to withdraw the motion without prejudice and Rosenstengel granted it.
In August 2023 Huffman served notice that he would depose a corporate representative about U.S. Steel’s affirmative defenses.
U.S. Steel objected to almost every line of questioning and in January, after months of negotiation, Hirtz moved for a protective order.
He claimed the notice lacked the specificity necessary to allow U. S. Steel to understand the breadth and subject matter of the topics for which it was being asked to prepare witnesses.
He claimed the topics were limited to a relevant scope and time and appeared to inquire into legal issues.
He claimed rules of civil procedure required a company to identify a witness who would testify on behalf of the company as to each particular topic.
He claimed when topics were broad and unrefined it was impossible to anticipate questions and identify and prepare the right witness for each topic.
Faron opposed a protective order in March, claiming Huffman sought information regarding the factual bases for any defenses along with details and sources.
She claimed he didn’t seek communications between U. S. Steel and its lawyers or their mental impressions or strategies.
Kleefuss filed another discrimination complaint in district court in May and filed a motion for consolidation in the original case.
Hirtz opposed consolidation, claiming facts, witnesses and documents weren’t the same and the cases would require separate legal analyses.
Faron replied that the first action involved events from 2014 to 2016 and the second action involved conduct from 2016 to 2023.
Rosenstengel resolved the deposition dispute and the consolidation dispute at the same time.
She found U.S. Steel inquired at Huffman’s deposition about his understanding and belief of his disclosed witnesses and Huffman should be permitted to do the same.
She found Huffman provided notice with sufficient particularity to understand and prepare a corporate deponent to discuss its disclosed witnesses.
The judge found topics about hiring, firing, determining returns after injuries, compliance with procedures, job descriptions and qualifications relevant and discoverable.She allowed a topic on the role of a utility technician or any role Huffman could have performed with his limitations. She allowed a topic on policies and procedures for disciplining and terminating employees. She allowed a topic on record keeping and document retention policies and practices, finding it could reasonably lead to other matters bearing on issues in the case. She allowed a topic on lawsuits and complaints filed with the equal employment opportunity commission and the state human rights department.
She limited all questions to events since 2014.
Rosenstengel granted consolidation, finding she would need to extend discovery even without it.
She found presentation of facts and arguments could be sensibly broken down in a dispositive motion or for a jury within a single suit.
She wrote: “In light of the commonality between these two cases and the involvement of the exact same parties and counsel it would be a waste of resources, especially judicial resources and the parties’ resources, to proceed separately.”
The judge set trial in January.