Litigation Details for Shipp v. Gomez (N.D. Ill. 2022)

Shipp v. Gomez (N.D. Ill. 2022)

Docket		Date Filed	2022-02-16
Court	District Court, N.D. Illinois	Date Terminated	2022-03-08
Cause	42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights	Assigned To	Robert Michael Dow Jr.
Jury Demand	Plaintiff	Referred To	M. David Weisman
Patents	8,231,876; 8,420,081; 8,663,945; 8,715,664; 8,883,156; 8,895,009; 8,906,372; 8,906,373; 8,906,646; 8,911,964; 8,916,153; 8,926,975; 8,999,337; 9,061,005; 9,062,106; 9,085,618; 9,085,619; 9,085,620; 9,090,688; 9,090,867; 9,096,666; 9,102,723; 9,150,645; 9,181,337; 9,181,572; 9,234,032; 9,266,949; 9,273,132; 9,284,370; 9,284,371; 9,290,568; 9,315,574; 9,328,165; 9,334,319; 9,346,879; 9,359,434; 9,499,614; 9,499,616; 9,505,834; 9,522,953; 9,550,826
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Biologic Drugs cited in Shipp v. Gomez

Details for Shipp v. Gomez (N.D. Ill. 2022)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2022-02-16	1	complaint	Protector Shroud 2. 8,231,876 Wan Purified… AbbVie’s patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark… AbbVie patents (AbbVie removed one of the patents from its prior list) and that those patent claims … U.S. Patent No. 8,420,081 63. U.S. Patent No. 8,420,081 (the “’081 patent”), titled “… U.S. Patent No. 8,926,975 68. U.S. Patent No. 8,926,975 (the “’975 patent”), titled “	External link to document
2022-02-16	60	answer to complaint	Protector Shroud 2. 8,231,876 Wan Purified…the ’081 patent, the ’975 patent, the ’973 patent, and the ’619 patent or any related patent because …the ’081 patent, the ’975 patent, the ’973 patent, and the ’619 patent due to Plaintiffs’ patent misuse…enforceable claim of the ’081 patent, the ’975 patent, the ’973 patent, and the ’619 patent, either literally or… claim of the ’081 patent, the ’975 patent, the ’973 patent, and the ’619 patent is invalid for failing	External link to document
2022-02-16	63	order	U.S. Patent No. 8,420,081 as one of the Ten Patents; and (3) the patent issuing from U.S. Patent Application…02889 to add (1) U.S. Patent No. 11,083,792; (2) the patent issuing from U.S. Patent Application No. 17/… related to the ten patents that will be subject to a first trial (“Ten Patents”)1, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED…9,187,559, 9,512,216, 11,083,792, and the patent issuing from U.S. Patent Application No. 17/137,201. Case…seek a preliminary injunction on any patents other than the Ten Patents. Plaintiffs shall not seek a preliminary	External link to document
2022-02-16	99	stipulation	Requests for Production related to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,805,686; 8,999,337; 9,067,992; 9,187,559; 9,512,216;…9,512,216; 11,083,792; and 11,167,030 (the patent issuing from U.S. Patent Application No. 17/137,201) (collectively…collectively, the “Remaining Patents”) by treating the term “Patents- in-Suit” as used in those Requests…served on August 25, 2021, to reflect all ten patents that will be tried in the August 2022 trial; and…Requests as including the Remaining Patents. AbbVie shall substantially complete this production on or before	External link to document
2022-02-16	101	other	proceeding involving the ’619 patent’s parent, U.S. Patent No. 8,420,081, lends further support to “water…indefinite, with terms in the ’792 patent being the most egregious. That patent, which AbbVie asserts covers…’s so-called “bufferless” patents, one of which, in violation of the Patent Dance confidentiality provisions… ARGUMENT The ’792 Patent The ’792 patent relates to methods for purifying … The ’619 and ’030 Patents The ’619 and ’030 patents share a common specification2	External link to document

Shipp v. Amazon.com Services LLC: A Litigation Summary and Analysis

Introduction

The case of Shipp v. Amazon.com Services LLC involves a complex set of allegations and legal challenges that highlight important aspects of employment law, particularly in the context of discrimination, retaliation, and the exhaustion of administrative remedies. Here, we will delve into the key points of the case, analyze the legal implications, and draw out important takeaways.

Background of the Case

Ray D. Shipp, the plaintiff, was an employee at Amazon who alleged that he faced discriminatory treatment and retaliation after reporting discriminatory conduct by his supervisor. Shipp claimed that he was passed over for a promotion, placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP), and eventually faced termination, all of which he believed were direct consequences of his complaint[1].

Key Allegations

• Failure to Promote: Shipp alleged that he was denied a promotion to the position of Area Ramp Manager despite being a qualified candidate.
• Performance Improvement Plan (PIP): He was placed on a PIP while working at the warehouse, which he believed was unjustified and a result of his earlier complaint.
• Retaliation: Shipp claimed that his placement on the PIP and subsequent termination were acts of retaliation for reporting the discriminatory conduct.

Administrative Exhaustion

A critical aspect of the case is the issue of administrative exhaustion. Shipp had filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) but failed to explicitly include his failure-to-promote claim in the charge. The EEOC charge form included sections for specifying the basis of discrimination and describing the particulars of the alleged events. However, Shipp only mentioned his PIP and termination in the particulars section and did not include any details about the failure-to-promote claim[1].

Legal Analysis

The court ruled that Shipp's failure-to-promote claim was distinct from the PIP and termination claims he raised with the EEOC. Therefore, he was required to explicitly raise the failure-to-promote claim with the EEOC to satisfy the exhaustion requirement under Title VII. The court cited precedents such as Rausch v. Alta Cima Corp. and Wheeler v. Becerra to support the notion that a plaintiff must raise all claims during the administrative process to avoid dismissal in subsequent litigation[1].

Court's Decision

The court concluded that Shipp failed to show that his failure-to-promote claim was developed by reasonable investigation of the original charge. As a result, he did not meet the exhaustion requirement, and the court could not maintain this claim in the subsequent Title VII lawsuit[1].

Implications for Employment Law

• Exhaustion Requirement: The case emphasizes the importance of exhaustively listing all claims during the administrative process. Failure to do so can result in the dismissal of those claims in subsequent litigation.
• Specificity in EEOC Charges: The decision highlights the need for specificity when filing EEOC charges. Broad terms like "discrimination" and "retaliation" are not sufficient if they do not encompass the specific claims being made.
• Retaliation Claims: The case underscores the challenges in proving retaliation claims, particularly when the alleged retaliatory actions are not clearly linked to the original complaint.

Best Practices for Employees and Employers

• Employees: When filing EEOC charges, ensure that all potential claims are explicitly stated to avoid issues with administrative exhaustion.
• Employers: Maintain clear and documented processes for handling complaints and ensure that any subsequent actions are not perceived as retaliatory.

Key Takeaways

• Administrative exhaustion is a critical step in employment litigation.
• Specificity is key when filing EEOC charges.
• Retaliation claims must be clearly linked to the original complaint.
• Employers should have robust policies in place to handle complaints and avoid retaliatory actions.

FAQs

Q: What is the significance of administrative exhaustion in employment law? A: Administrative exhaustion is crucial because it ensures that all claims are raised and investigated at the administrative level before proceeding to court, thereby giving the employer and the relevant agency an opportunity to address the issue.

Q: Why did Shipp's failure-to-promote claim fail in court? A: Shipp's failure-to-promote claim failed because he did not explicitly raise it in his EEOC charge, thus failing to meet the administrative exhaustion requirement.

Q: What should employees do to ensure their EEOC charges are comprehensive? A: Employees should ensure that all potential claims are explicitly stated in the EEOC charge form, including detailed descriptions of the alleged events.

Q: How can employers protect themselves from retaliation claims? A: Employers should maintain clear and documented processes for handling complaints and ensure that any subsequent actions are not perceived as retaliatory. They should also provide training on non-retaliation policies.

Q: What are the potential consequences for employers if they fail to handle complaints properly? A: Employers who fail to handle complaints properly may face legal action, including lawsuits under Title VII, and could be found liable for damages if retaliation is proven.

Sources

1. Ray D. Shipp v. Amazon.com Services LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, July 18, 2023.
2. 2018 FOIA Log, U.S. Department of Education.
3. Arkansas Court Declines to Dismiss Challenge to ESOP, Holland & Knight, August 16, 2024.
4. FOIA Log by Year, U.S. Department of Education.