Raymond Hayes v. City of Chicago
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4161
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Hayes, a Chicago police officer since 1976, was terminated in 1993 after a Police Board ruling for misconduct.
- Hayes challenged the Police Board’s ruling in Cook County circuit court in 1993, raising multiple challenges but not asserting race-based termination.
- The Illinois courts upheld the Police Board’s decision; Illinois Supreme Court denied review.
- Hayes filed an IHRC discrimination complaint in 1994, later narrowing to race discrimination; IHRC issued no definitive ruling until 2011.
- Hayes filed a federal Title VII/§1981/§1983 suit in 1995; the district court dismissed as res judicata.
- IHRC administrative proceedings in 2005–2009 awarded damages and attorney’s fees; Hayes did not appeal IHRC’s final determination.
- Hayes filed the present federal suit in 2010 alleging racial discrimination in termination; the district court dismissed as claim preclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does claim preclusion bar the Title VII claim? | Hayes argues Title VII claim arises from different facts than 1993 appeal. | City contends the Title VII claim arises from same transaction and operative facts as the 1993 termination appeal. | Yes; claim preclusion bars the Title VII claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) (establishes claim preclusion framework)
- Highway J Citizens Grp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 456 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2006) (preclusion analysis in a federal context)
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 703 N.E.2d 883 (Ill. 1998) (Illinois transactional test for identity of cause of action)
- Rodgers v. St. Mary’s Hosp. of Decatur, 597 N.E.2d 616 (Ill. 1992) (single cause of action if single group of operative facts)
- Durgins v. City of E. St. Louis, 272 F.3d 841 (7th Cir. 2001) (precedent on preclusion barring related police termination claims)
- Davis v. City of Chicago, 53 F.3d 801 (7th Cir. 1995) (preclusion in municipal employment context)
- Pirela v. Village of North Aurora, 935 F.2d 909 (7th Cir. 1991) (Title VII suit barred by prior state proceedings)
- Johnson v. Univ. of Wis.-Milwaukee, 783 F.2d 59 (7th Cir. 1986) (issue preclusion discussed; not identical issues)
- Rein v. David A. Noyes & Co., 665 N.E.2d 1199 (Ill. 1996) (six equitable scenarios where res judicata may be inequitable)
- Univ. of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788 (1986) (unreviewed state administrative judgments and preclusion)