About a year ago, I recapped a lawsuit brought by two former employees at the CHRO who claimed their employment was terminated improperly.
At the time, I said that the complaint, brought by Valerie Kennedy and Paula Ross, "paints a picture of an organization run-a-muck with those who are charged with protecting against discrimination, as being those who allegedly did the discrimination." The CHRO denied the allegations and the case was scheduled to be done with discovery by June 2008.
So, what’s happened since then?
Publicly, not a lot. The parties filed a status update with the court in June 2008 indicating that discovery was proceeding but that further extensions of time may be needed. The case was then set down for a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Garfinkel; that conference is now scheduled for November 12, 2008. In light of that settlement conference schedule, the parties extended the discovery dates further and it is now scheduled to be complete in mid-December 2008.
(The papers reveal that further extensions may be needed to some some complications, so don’t hold your breath on this date).
So, if nothing significant (at least publicly) as occurred in a year, why is this matter still significant? Because it is a prime example at the relative speed that discrimination cases proceed in federal court. For employers looking for quick resolution of such cases, that resolution is more likely to be found in a early settlement or mediation of a dispute.