Cheng v. Ford
2017 IL App (5th) 160274
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Qiang Cheng and Jale Tezcan, SIUC faculty, were the subject of a student research-misconduct complaint that triggered SIUC’s Research Misconduct Policy procedures.
- Susan M. Ford, SIUC interim provost (a State employee), conducted an initial assessment, appointed an inquiry team, and—after the inquiry recommended further investigation—appointed an investigation panel.
- Plaintiffs filed suit seeking injunctive relief in federal court under § 1983; the federal court dismissed the due-process claim for lack of a recognized liberty or property interest.
- Plaintiffs later filed a second amended complaint in circuit court adding Count II: a tort claim for money damages against Dr. Ford alleging tortious interference by her refusal to terminate the misconduct process.
- Dr. Ford moved to dismiss under section 2-619, asserting sovereign immunity under the State Lawsuit Immunity Act and that the Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction under the Court of Claims Act; the circuit court certified questions for interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count II is effectively a claim against the State requiring Court of Claims jurisdiction | Count II targets Ford individually and alleges she exceeded her authority under the Policy, so circuit court jurisdiction is proper | Ford argues the claim arises from duties she owed solely as a State employee, so it must be heard in Court of Claims | Held: Claim is against State function — Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction |
| Whether the "source of the duty" is independent of State employment | Plaintiffs contend the Policy language imposed a duty independent of Ford’s role | Ford contends the duty flowed solely from her official authority to administer the Policy | Held: Duty arose solely from State employment; Court of Claims exclusive |
| Whether relief sought could "control" State actions such that suit is against the State | Plaintiffs seek money damages against Ford only, not to control State operations | Ford argues a damages judgment would effectively control how she administers the Policy | Held: A damages judgment could control State action; supports Court of Claims jurisdiction |
| Whether Ford’s alleged exceeding of authority avoids sovereign immunity | Plaintiffs claim Ford exceeded her authority under the Policy (non‑state duty) | Ford argues even an erroneous interpretation or exceeding of authority was made in her official capacity | Held: Allegations of error/exceeding authority do not remove claim from Court of Claims jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Leetaru v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 2015 IL 117485 (form over substance; analyze source of duty and whether suit is effectively against the State)
- Loman v. Freeman, 229 Ill. 2d 104 (2008) (articulates "source of the duty" and "control" tests for Court of Claims jurisdiction)
- Fritz v. Johnston, 209 Ill. 2d 302 (2004) (Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over tort claims against the State)
- In re Luis R., 239 Ill. 2d 295 (2010) (absence or presence of jurisdiction is reviewed de novo)