MILES DAVIS, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the court is plaintiff's motion for the court's approval to issue a newspaper advertisement (doc. 15) to which defendant has responded (doc. 23). Plaintiff sues in behalf of Hope Williams and similarly situated individuals claiming racial discrimination. Specifically, plaintiff claims that defendant's store on Nine Mile Road in Pensacola, Florida, violated plaintiff's civil rights in refusing to hire her as a Server based on her race. Plaintiff seeks to publish a newspaper advertisement seeking input from all black individuals who applied for a food server job at the applicable store during calendar year 1996. Plaintiff argues that this is necessary to protect the interests of any such aggrieved individuals and because defendant failed to maintain appropriate records in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c) and 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14.
Defendant argues that the motion is untimely because this case has been pending since December 1999 and plaintiff is just now seeking to identify possible additional affected individuals. Defendant further argues that the advertisement is over broad because the claim of any person who applied for the relevant position prior to October 1, 1996 would be barred by the statute of limitations. Defendant further argues that the advertisement is legally unwarranted because, contrary to plaintiff's claim, any recovery made in this suit would not prejudice potential claims of others. Finally, defendant argues that the advertisement is prejudicial to its interest because it states that the plaintiff "is currently in litigation against the above-named employer for allegedly falling to hire blacks as servers."
While it is true that plaintiff appears not to have moved with dispatch, any possible prejudice to defendant by the late finding of a potential claimant can be dealt with by appropriate motion later. As to defendant's argument that the advertisement solicits time-barred claimants, the running of the statute of limitations may ultimately be dispositive as to some claimants, but that issue is not now properly before the court. Indeed, there is disagreement between the parties on the actual date of the filing of the use plaintiff's EEOC claim. It may be true that the prosecution of this claim will not prejudice the rights of other potential parties, but it is also true, as plaintiff urges, that the prosecution of more than one claim in one lawsuit results in economies both to the court and to the parties.
The copy of the claim attached to defendant's memorandum shows an EEOC date stamp that appears to be July 28, 1997. The identical form attached to plaintiff's memorandum does not show a date stamp that is legible. The undersigned is simply unable to say with certainty that the July 28, 1997 date urged by defendant is correct.
Finally, defendant's argument that it will be prejudiced by the language in the advertisement is unsupported. Defendant cites no authority for its position and makes no showing that anything contained in the advertisement is factually incorrect.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for court approval to issue a newspaper advertisement (doc. 15) is GRANTED.
DONE AND ORDERED.