The agency's investigator barely remembered the case five years later – here's what the court ruled
A federal agency is suing Alto Ingredients for allegedly firing an electrician over his disability – just three months after he started.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought the case in June 2024, filing on behalf of Mark Butcher in the Central District of Illinois. The allegation is straightforward: Alto Ingredients, Inc. terminated Butcher because of his disability, rather than for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case has not yet reached a decision on that central question. But a ruling handed down on April 27, 2026, by U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna offers a window into how the litigation has unfolded – and it has not been smooth.
Alto moved to compel the EEOC to hand over three sets of documents: investigation notes from the EEOC employee who handled Butcher's complaint, records of prior EEOC charges Butcher had filed against other employers, and personnel records for the investigator herself, including her discipline, evaluation, review, and training records. The court denied all three requests.
The story behind those requests is where things get interesting for anyone who manages people for a living.
The EEOC investigator assigned to Butcher's case was J'Ana Diamond. When Alto finally secured her deposition – after initial resistance from the agency – Diamond showed up unprepared. She had not reviewed her own investigation file before testifying, a decision made at the direction of the EEOC's attorneys. The problem was that Diamond's work on Butcher's case had taken place roughly five years earlier. She remembered almost nothing.
She did acknowledge that she may have conducted a follow-up call with Butcher in December 2022 and that she likely would have taken notes. Alto says those notes never appeared in the materials the EEOC turned over. The EEOC says no such notes exist – or at least none that are not already protected by privilege.
The court declined to force the issue, noting that it cannot order a party to produce documents that may not exist. But the judge did remind the EEOC that its attorneys, as representatives of a federal agency, carry a heightened obligation to act in good faith during litigation.
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.
