Sutton v. Illinois State Police

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

RAY E. SUTTON ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Case No. 22-cv-1380-SMY ILLINOIS STATE POLICE, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge: Pending before the Court are Defendant Illinois State Police’s motions in limine Nos. 1 and 2(Doc. 49) and Plaintiff’s supplemental opposition (Doc. 58). At the July 9, 2025 final pretrial conference, the Court took Defendant’s motions to exclude testimony regarding alleged ageist statements by Josh Easton and Jerry Zacheis under advisement. Defendant specifically seeks to bar Plaintiff from testifying that: (1) Josh Easton, an interviewer, asked Plaintiff when he intended to retire and frequently greeted him as “old man” or “grandpa”; (2) Jerry Zacheis, another interviewer, also referred to Plaintiff as “old man”; and (3) any other alleged ageist statements or conduct not directly linked to the decision-maker, the hiring decision timeframe, and the decision not to promote Plaintiff. In an EEOC filing, Plaintiff asserted that Josh Easton conversed with him about when and where he would retire, and another interviewer asked about his retirement plans immediately before the interview. Plaintiff also asserted that Zacheis had previously discussed retirement with him and claimed that “many of the CSI’s and Command” had called him “old man” and “grandpa” during his employment (Doc. 58- 1, p. 2). These alleged statements are vague and not probative as to whether the interviewers or decisionmakers used age as a criterion in making a recommendation or the ultimate decision about the hire. As the Seventh Circuit has held, allegations concerning stray statements cannot be considered to describe discriminatory motivation unless the remark was: “(1) made by decision- maker; (2) around the time of the decision; and (3) in reference to the adverse employment action.” Egonmwan vy. Cook Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 602 F.3d 845, 850 (7th Cir. 2010). For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2 are GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 15, 2025

STACI M. YANDLE United States District Judge