BENTON - President Trump’s gender order has frozen a discrimination suit of the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission against Sis-Bro pig weaning company of New Athens.
Department of Justice trial attorney Jonathan Delozano of Chicago moved for a stay on Jan. 30, “in light of recent policy changes.”
He claimed Trump ordered commissioners to rescind rules they adopted last year.
“A 30 day stay of litigation will permit EEOC to determine whether its continued litigation is conducted consistent with the order," Delozano wrote.
A stay would cancel a hearing senior U.S. District Judge Phil Gilbert set to continue a session that went badly for the commission in December.
Sis-Bro belongs to Clare Schilling and Drew Schilling, sister and brother, who operate it on their family farm.
Equal opportunity commissioners sued Sis-Bro last March claiming it violated rights of former employee Natasha Figueroa on the basis of sex and transgender status.
They alleged offensive speech and actions by an employee they identified by first name.
They claimed Clare Schilling used Figuerora’s previous name and called him a man.
Sis-Bro moved to dismiss the complaint and Gilbert denied it in August.
He found that whether conduct was severe or pervasive enough to constitute an objectively hostile environment could be decided on summary judgment or at trial.
“EEOC has alleged that it was and that is enough at this stage of the litigation," he wrote.
Three days later Figueroa moved to intervene.
Sis-Bro didn’t object and James Dore of Chicago filed Figueroa’s complaint in September.
Sis-Bro moved to dismiss it in October and Dore voluntarily dismissed three of six counts without prejudice in November.
Also in November the commission moved to quash a subpoena that Sis-Bro served on Union Club of Purdue University as Figueroa’s current employer.
At a hearing Delozano said it would inform her employer that she’s involved in litigation.
He asked Gilbert to balance the benefit of the information with the burden of compliance.
Gilbert asked Sis-Bro counsel Scott Cruz of Chicago why he needed the information and Cruz said neither the commission nor Figueroa provided it.
He said he thought her employment at Union Club commenced in April.
He said commission counsel incredibly stated in a verification that he had no personal knowledge relating to any responses to Sis-Bro’s interrogatories.
He said he received nothing but six pay stubs from a business that neither the commission nor Figueroa identified among former employers.
Cruz said the stubs showed Figueroa used an alias of Tania Sauceda and a different social security number from what she provided to Sis-Bro.
He said he asked for her social security number and she answered that she didn’t have one.
“It means that she is not authorized and has not been authorized to work in the U.S.," he said.”
He said the commission still asked for $92,000 in back pay.
“The fact that both the plaintiff and the EEOC continue to maintain that she is entitled to back pay and front pay is astonishing,” he said.
He said there was no reason for the hearing and Figueroa herself didn’t join the motion.
“We don’t even know if plaintiff has disclosed this lawsuit to her current employer and the EEOC can’t make a representation that she has and plaintiff’s not here to state otherwise," he said.
Gilbert asked Cruz if he talked to Dore and Cruz said, “Her attorney refuses to respond to us. No one’s going to have information because we don’t know what name she’s using.”
Gilbert asked Delozano if he had the documents and he said no.
He said Sis-Bro was in the same position as the commission.
“That’s why it is really Sis-Bro’s obligation to seek its own discovery, to turn the earth to get those documents before going to sue her current employer," he said.
“Requests to a current employer are by their nature abusive and should only be done as a last resort.”
Cruz said it was a last resort.
Gilbert asked him if he was saying the intervenor won’t correspond with her attorney.
“I don’t know why Mr. Dore is not able to coordinate with his client," Cruz said. “How is it that EEOC sets the appropriate process for Sis-Bro?”
Gilbert said, “They say they don’t have it.”
Cruz said, “Then they shouldn’t have filed this motion.”
Gilbert said, “That’s why I’m curious too.”
He said he needed a hearing in January and the intervenor had to appear.
“I want to see everybody’s eyeballs here," he said.
He set it Jan. 21.
On Jan. 3, Sis-Bro moved for summary judgment on back pay.
On Jan. 16, Gilbert denied dismissal of Figueroa’s remaining counts without prejudice.
On that date Figueroa and Sis-Bro stipulated to dismiss the entire intervenor complaint.
Dore’s colleague Daniel Schade stated they would likely not have a formal appearance although they might continue to assist the commission in a liaison role.
Also on that date Delozano moved to reset the hearing, stating Sis-Bro’s motion might negate the need for information from subsequent employers.
Gilbert set the hearing Feb. 20 but a stay would cancel it.
At last report no one could locate the allegedly offensive former employee.