Janice Draper v. Timothy Martin
664 F.3d 1110
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Two separate suits by four former IDOT employees alleging political discrimination and improper termination under §1983, with two cases consolidated on appeal.
- Each employee received a layoff notice dated June 15–30, 2004, stating positions were targeted for abolishment and that they would be laid off.
- Plaintiffs filed Complaints in 2006, arguing the Illinois two-year statute of limitations barred claims; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- District courts granted summary judgment, holding the Illinois limitation period began at notice, not termination, and that reorganization uncertainty did not alter accrual.
- Appellate review is de novo on the statute of limitations issue; Seventh Circuit applies a two-step accrual analysis (identify injury, then when suit could have been filed).
- Court applies Kuemmerlein to hold accrual occurs at final discriminatory decision, despite possible future recall, and affirms dismissal as barred by the two-year period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does accrual occur for discriminatory discharge claims under Illinois law? | Accrual should wait for final termination when uncertainty exists. | Accrual occurs at the notice/decision point, not at actual termination. | Accrual at final discriminatory decision (notice of layoff). |
| Does uncertain reorganization alter accrual date in layoff notices? | Uncertainty about who will be terminated prevents final decision. | Uncertainty does not change accrual date; final decision control. | Uncertainty does not alter accrual date; Kuemmerlein controls. |
| Are the termination notices unequivocal enough to start accrual? | Not unequivocal due to recalls/remans; relies on notice ambiguity. | Notion of unequivocal notice satisfied by language in notices. | Notices unequivocally indicated termination; accrual begins. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuemmerlein v. Bd. of Educ. of the Madison Metro. Sch. Dist., 894 F.2d 257 (7th Cir. 1990) (recall risk does not defeat accrual at notice date)
- Flannery v. Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., 354 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2004) (final, ultimate, non-tentative decision governs accrual)
- Smith v. Potter, 445 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2006) (accrual tied to final discriminatory action)
- Lawshe v. Simpson, 16 F.3d 1475 (7th Cir. 1994) (procedural due process accrual principles cited)
- Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6 (1981) (focus on time of discriminatory act, not consequences)
- Ricks v. State, 449 U.S. 250 (1981) (final, definitive discriminatory decision concept (Ricks/Chardon line))
- Potter v. Potter, 445 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2006) (notice letter suffices to start accrual under certain contexts)
- Jenkins v. Vill. of Maywood, 506 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2007) (context for accrual in §1983 cases)