Doe v. Coe
2019 IL 123521
| Ill. | 2019Background
- Jane Doe (15) was sexually assaulted in 2013 by Chad Coe (31), the church’s director of youth ministries; plaintiffs sued Coe, First Congregational Church of Dundee (FCCD), and pastor Aaron James for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention and for willful-and-wanton conduct.
- Plaintiffs alleged FCCD did not run a background check, that Coe used the pseudonym “BluesGod88” on pornographic sites (including sites with child pornography), and that he engaged in repeated inappropriate contact with minors and isolated girls.
- Plaintiffs alleged volunteers and at least one early-childhood professional reported inappropriate interactions to James, and that James observed or was otherwise aware of concerning conduct but failed to act or to implement the church’s Safe Church Policy.
- The circuit court struck certain post-assault allegations and dismissed all counts against FCCD and James under section 2-615; the appellate court affirmed some strikes, reinstated negligent hiring and negligent supervision (and overlapping willful-and-wanton claims), but affirmed dismissal of negligent retention.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted review and (a) affirmed the strike of post-assault allegations, (b) reinstated negligent hiring and negligent supervision claims, and (c) reversed the dismissal of negligent retention; willful-and-wanton counts were reinstated to the extent they overlap with supervision and retention theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike post‑assault allegations | Post-assault conduct (e.g., meetings excluding Doe, failure to notify parents, support for Coe) shows aggravated negligence and bears on willful-and-wanton claim | Post-assault conduct is neutral as to pre-assault culpability and therefore irrelevant/cumulative | Court affirmed strike: post-assault allegations do not make pre-assault culpability more or less likely and were properly stricken |
| Negligent hiring (Count XII) | FCCD failed to perform a background check; a cursory Google search would have revealed Coe’s pseudonymous porn postings and sexual interest in children | Mere failure to check is insufficient; plaintiffs must allege what a background check would have shown; inference is implausible | Reinstated: pleadings alleging that a basic web search would have revealed Coe’s online sexual activity are fact allegations sufficient to survive 2‑615 |
| Negligent supervision (Counts VIII & XIII) | FCCD and James failed to monitor Coe (he was often the only adult, James observed Doe alone with Coe, reports to James) | Supervisory claim should require prior notice of particular unfitness, like negligent retention/hiring | Reinstated: employer/supervisor duty to reasonably supervise arises from general foreseeability; prior notice of particular unfitness is not an element |
| Negligent retention (Counts IX & XIV) | FCCD and James had constructive/actual notice from witnessed conduct and reports and therefore negligently retained Coe | Plaintiffs failed to plead specific misconduct observed by agents sufficient to put FCCD/James on notice of particular unfitness | Reversed dismissal (claim reinstated): plaintiffs alleged cumulative inappropriate acts and reports that, if proven, could put defendants on notice of particular unfitness |
| Willful and wanton claims (Counts X, XI, XV, XVI) | Post-assault and pre-assault facts support aggravated negligence overlapping negligence counts | Overlap with negligent hiring should bar reinstatement in part; counts duplicate negligence theories | Reinstated to the extent they overlap with negligent supervision and negligent retention; overlap with negligent hiring remains limited per parties’ briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (explaining 2‑615 standard and that allegations are construed in plaintiff’s favor)
- Van Horne v. Muller, 185 Ill. 2d 299 (defining negligent hiring/retention elements)
- Vancura v. Katris, 238 Ill. 2d 352 (distinguishing vicarious liability and direct employer misconduct claims)
- Hills v. Bridgeview Little League Ass’n, 195 Ill. 2d 210 (discussing employer/supervisor duties and master‑servant factors)
- Doe‑3 v. McLean County Unit Dist. No. 5 Bd. of Directors, 2012 IL 112479 (public policy favoring child protection; discussion of willful-and-wanton duty issues)
- Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority, 238 Ill. 2d 215 (willful and wanton treated as aggravated negligence)
- Rhodes v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R., 172 Ill. 2d 213 (duties and limits of imposing legal duties beyond the law)
- Norskog v. Pfiel, 197 Ill. 2d 60 (contrast on notice requirement in parent‑child control context)