Joseph Rutledge v. Illinois Department of Childre
785 F.3d 258
7th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff is a Vietnam veteran with serious psychiatric diagnoses (PTSD, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression) and a VA 100% disability rating; he was hired in 2004 by the Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS) as a certified nurse assistant/residential case worker.
- In ~2006 a resident (and the resident’s family) assaulted plaintiff; DHS suspended him based on a child-abuse investigation by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS).
- DCFS issued a preliminary finding of child abuse that was later retracted; plaintiff alleges his suspension/termination was actually disability-based discrimination in violation of §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794(a).
- Plaintiff sued in 2014 (eight years after suspension); the district court dismissed the entire complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim and as time-barred; plaintiff appeals only the Rehabilitation Act claim against DHS.
- The appellate court treats plaintiff’s allegations as true for purposes of review, reverses dismissal of the §504 claim against DHS, affirms dismissal of other claims/defendants, and remands for further proceedings (including service on DHS); court notes possible tolling and administrative process issues affecting timeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint alleged disability discrimination under §504 (pretext claim) | Disability motivated the discharge; neglect finding was pretext | Discharge based on neglect/child-abuse finding, not disability | Reversed dismissal — complaint sufficiently alleges pretext and §504 claim survives pleading stage |
| Effect of VA 100% disability rating on ability-to-work inference | VA rating does not preclude ability to work; plaintiff could perform or was accommodated | VA total-disability finding shows plaintiff unable to perform job, so no discrimination claim | Rejected notion that VA rating conclusively proves inability to work; employer could have believed plaintiff could work or accommodated him |
| Timeliness under Illinois two-year statute of limitations for §504 claims | Filing within tolled period given prolonged investigation and administrative process; discharge may not have ripened until DCFS cleared him | Claim is time-barred because suit filed eight years after suspension/discharge | Remanded for district court to determine when discharge ripened and whether tolling or administrative process delays save claim |
| Proper parties and service | Suit properly proceeds against DHS for §504 claim | Procedural defects and lack of service justify dismissal | Appellate court directs service on acting DHS secretary and remands; other defendants affirmed dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Voigt v. Colvin, 781 F.3d 871 (7th Cir.) (disabled persons may still be able to work; courts should not penalize charitable retention)
- Jones v. Shalala, 21 F.3d 191 (7th Cir.) (illustration that disability determinations don't always preclude employment)
- Brumfield v. City of Chicago, 735 F.3d 619 (7th Cir.) (employer duty to provide reasonable accommodation)
- Wisconsin Community Services, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee, 465 F.3d 737 (7th Cir.) (ADA/rehabilitation-act accommodation principles)
- Conley v. Village of Bedford Park, 215 F.3d 703 (7th Cir.) (Illinois statute of limitations applies to §504 claims)
- Swinkle v. Illinois Civil Service Commission, 903 N.E.2d 746 (Ill. App.) (discharge process for many Illinois state employees involves hearings and agency approval)
- Illinois Department of Revenue v. Illinois Civil Service Commission, 827 N.E.2d 960 (Ill. App.) (administrative discharge procedures can delay finality of termination)