EEOC sues Alto Ingredients for allegedly axing electrician over disability

On the question of Butcher’s prior charges against other employers, the court found them irrelevant. Alto argued those records could shed light on Butcher’s ability to accurately perceive and recall events. The court was unconvinced, reasoning that a charge filed at a different time against a different employer has no bearing on what happened at Alto. 

The request for Diamond’s personnel file met a similar fate. Alto pointed out that it had been required to turn over its own managers’ employment records, so the EEOC should do the same for its investigator. The court drew a clear line between the two. Alto’s managers were directly involved in the decision to fire Butcher – the very act at the center of the case. Diamond’s role came after the termination, and her job performance as an investigator is not what this case is about. The court also noted that once the EEOC files a lawsuit, its internal pre-suit investigation is generally shielded from discovery. 

Alto also never challenged the EEOC’s claims of privilege over Diamond’s investigative file – not at any hearing and not in its motion to compel or reply. The court found that silence amounted to a waiver of the argument. 

Discovery is now closed. Both sides face an April 30, 2026 deadline to file dispositive motions, which means a ruling on the actual discrimination claim could come in the months ahead. For HR professionals watching this space, the substantive decision – whether a three-month termination crossed the line under the ADA – will be the one worth reading. 

The case is EEOC v. Alto Ingredients, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01269-JEH-RLH, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois.