Background

• Mendez, plaintiff-appellee, sued Perla Dental and Dental Profile for gender discrimination, hostile environment, retaliation, assault and battery, IIED, retaliatory discharge under Illinois law, and FLSA/ILMWL claims; jury found for Mendez on all claims with compensatory/punitive damages, overtime, and lost wages.
• Defendants challenge subject matter jurisdiction over the retaliatory discharge claim, asserting preemption by the Illinois Human Rights Act (Act) and exclusive jurisdiction in the Illinois Human Rights Commission.
• The district court had subject matter jurisdiction because the retaliatory discharge claim had an independent basis and could be pursued in court under state common law; the police-report basis was not abrogated by later trial results.
• Evidence showed ongoing sexual harassment and retaliation for complaints, including a hospital visit after a physical incident caused by a supervisor and subsequent firing after hospital bill submission.
• Defendants sought to narrow the jury instruction and argue abandonment of the police-report basis; the court held these are trial issues and do not defeat jurisdiction, and they waived any jury-instruction challenge on appeal.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Blount v. Stroud, 904 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2009) (exclusive Act jurisdiction and the nature of justiciable complaints)
• Bannon v. University of Chicago, 503 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2007) (common-law torts not preempted if not dependent on Act duties)
• Naeem v. McKesson Drug Co., 444 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 2006) (preemption analysis in Act context; inextricably linked claims)
• Maksimovic v. Tsogalis, 687 N.E.2d 21 (Ill. 1997) (state-law torts commencing under common law; preemption limits)
• Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. 2002) (subject-matter jurisdiction defined by complaint framing)