810 F.2d 658 (7th Cir. 1987), 85-2850, Shrock v. Altru Nurses Registry

Docket Nº85-2850, 86-1161.
Citation810 F.2d 658
Party Name, 7 Fed.R.Serv.3d 93 Cecil C. SHROCK, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. ALTRU NURSES REGISTRY, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Case DateJanuary 20, 1987
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Page 658

810 F.2d 658 (7th Cir. 1987)

, 7 Fed.R.Serv.3d 93

Cecil C. SHROCK, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,

v.

ALTRU NURSES REGISTRY, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 85-2850, 86-1161.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

January 20, 1987

Submitted Nov. 20, 1986.

Page 659

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 660

Keith C. Hult, Matkov, Griffin, Parsons, Salzman & Madoff, Donna M. Banik, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee/cross-appellant.

Cecil C. Shrock, pro se.

Before POSNER and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges, and PELL, Senior Circuit Judge.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.

Shrock is a male nurse; Altru is a business which refers nurses registered with it to persons needing a nurse. In 1979 Shrock filed charges with the EEOC, followed later by a suit under Title VII, alleging that Altru was refusing to refer male nurses to female patients. The suit was dismissed on August 26, 1983, pursuant to a settlement between Shrock and Altru. Two and a half weeks later Shrock filed new charges with the EEOC, again followed by a suit, charging that beginning the day after the settlement of the previous suit Altru had again discriminated against him. How he knew this is unclear. The result of the settlement had been to put him back on the registry, but at the bottom, so unless Altru in two and a half weeks had a lot of inquiries from female patients, it might have made no referrals to him even with the best will in the world. In any event the new suit was dismissed on Altru's motion for summary judgment, Judge McMillen stating, "This is a pro se complaint which should never have been filed, and defendant is probably entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988." Altru moved for an award of attorney's fees, but by then Judge McMillen had resigned from the bench, and the case was assigned to Judge Plunkett, who denied the motion without any statement of reasons. Shrock appeals from the dismissal of his suit and Altru cross-appeals from the denial of its motion for an award of attorney's fees.

Unless Altru in 1983 was an employer, an employment agency, or a labor union, it cannot be liable to Shrock under Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2000e-2, e-3. Of course it was not a labor union. And it was neither Shrock's employer--he, clearly, was an independent contractor--nor the employer of the other nurses registered with it, and with all these...

To continue reading

Request your trial