Cheng v. Ford
2017 IL App (5th) 160274
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Qiang Cheng and Jale Tezcan, SIUC associate professors, were the subject of a graduate student research-misconduct complaint that triggered SIUC’s Research Misconduct Policy.
- Susan M. Ford, SIUC interim provost (a State employee), conducted the required initial assessment and, after a faculty inquiry team recommended further investigation, appointed an investigation panel.
- Plaintiffs filed suit seeking equitable relief in circuit court (initial §1983 due-process claim removed to and dismissed by federal court), then amended to add a tort claim for money damages against Ford alleging tortious interference by proceeding to investigation contrary to the Policy.
- Ford moved to dismiss under section 2-619, arguing sovereign immunity under the State Lawsuit Immunity Act and that the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over tort claims against the State.
- The circuit court denied the motion but certified questions for interlocutory appeal; the appellate court, on supervisory direction, addressed whether Ford is immune and whether the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction.
- The appellate court held Ford is entitled to sovereign immunity for the money-damages tort claim and that the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction; remanded for proceedings consistent with that holding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a money-damages tort claim against a State employee arising from administration of a university policy is a claim "against the State" requiring Court of Claims jurisdiction | The duty Ford allegedly breached was imposed independently (based on plaintiffs’ reading of the Policy); Ford exceeded authority, so suit may proceed in circuit court | Ford’s duties arose solely from her State employment (administering the Research Misconduct Policy); substance controls over form, so claim is effectively against the State | Held for Ford: source-of-duty test shows duty derived solely from State employment → Court of Claims exclusive jurisdiction |
| Whether the relief sought (money damages) could "control" State action or subject the State to liability, and thus require Court of Claims jurisdiction | Damages against the individual would not necessarily control State procedures | A damages judgment would necessarily dictate how Ford (as an official) should have applied the Policy and could control State action | Held for Ford: control test satisfied → exclusive jurisdiction in Court of Claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Leetaru v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 2015 IL 117485 (substance over form; claims nominally against employees may be claims against the State)
- Loman v. Freeman, 229 Ill. 2d 104 (articulating the source-of-the-duty and control tests for determining whether suit against employee is effectively against the State)
- Fritz v. Johnston, 209 Ill. 2d 302 (Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over tort claims against the State)