Doe v. Coe, 2017 IL App (2d) 160875

Background

Plaintiffs (a minor Jane Doe and her parents) sued multiple United Church of Christ (UCC) entities and officers, alleging negligence in hiring, supervision, and retention of Chad Coe, a youth pastor who sexually abused Jane Doe on church property.
Defendants moved to dismiss under section 2-615 and section 2-619 of the Code, submitting affidavits from UCC officials (Morales and Dorhauer) asserting the UCC’s congregational structure and that Coe was employed solely by the local church (FCC), not the defendant UCC entities.
The affidavits quoted the UCC constitution and bylaws but did not attach sworn or certified copies of those documents as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191(a).
The trial court granted the motion, finding plaintiffs failed to plead that defendants knew or should have known of Coe’s unfitness and treating the affidavits as conclusive that defendants were not Coe’s employer.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued the affidavits violated Rule 191(a)’s attached-papers requirement; the appellate court agreed and held the affidavits were fatally deficient, reversing and remanding.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether affidavits complied with Ill. S. Ct. R. 191(a)’s requirement to attach documents relied upon	Affiants quoted the UCC constitution/bylaws and therefore had to attach sworn/certified copies; failure is fatal	Affiants had personal knowledge and plaintiffs were familiar with the documents; defendants later attached the documents to their reply	Held for plaintiff: strict compliance required; affidavits defective because they did not attach sworn/certified copies of the constitution/bylaws
Whether the section 2-619 affidavits conclusively established defendants were not Coe’s employers	Affidavits cannot be considered if they violate Rule 191(a)	Affidavits proved autonomy of local churches and thus defendants had no employment/control over Coe	Held for plaintiff: trial court erred to rely on defective affidavits; §2-619 dismissal improper on that basis
Whether plaintiffs alleged facts sufficient under §2-615 to show defendants knew or should have known of Coe’s unfitness	Complaint alleged negligence in hiring, supervision, retention sufficient to survive dismissal	Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to plead actual or constructive knowledge of Coe’s unfitness	Held: Appellees failed to provide adequate legal argument or authority to uphold §2-615 dismissal; no independent basis to affirm
Whether documents elsewhere in the record or later-filed copies cured Rule 191(a) defect	Plaintiffs: attached-papers requirement is strict; later or elsewhere copies do not cure defect	Defendants: plaintiffs cited the constitution; documents were elsewhere in record and attached to reply	Held for plaintiff: Rule 191(a) demands sworn/certified attachments to affidavits; later or non-sworn copies do not cure the defect

Key Cases Cited

Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill. 2d 324 (2002) (Rule 191(a)’s attached-papers requirement requires strict compliance; failure to attach documents relied upon is fatal)
Ultsch v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 226 Ill. 2d 169 (2007) (standard for assessing whether genuine factual issues preclude dismissal applies to both summary judgment and §2-619 motions)
Aurelius v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 384 Ill. App. 3d 969 (2008) (distinguishes §2-615 and §2-619 motions and explains §2-619 may be supported by affidavits as affirmative matter)
Van Horne v. Muller, 185 Ill. 2d 299 (1999) (discusses employer liability principles relevant to negligent hiring/supervision claims)
Preze v. Borden Chemical, Inc., 336 Ill. App. 3d 52 (2002) (reinforces Rule 191(a)’s plain-language requirement that supporting documents must be attached)
Otis Elevator Co. v. American Surety Co., 314 Ill. App. 479 (1942) (earlier decision on substantial compliance with predecessor rule; distinguished and not followed in light of Robidoux)