999 F. Supp. 2d 991
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- Plaintiffs (Volling, Banser, Soulak) allege pervasive sexual harassment, assault/battery, retaliation, and unsafe/misconduct (e.g., pranks with drugs/feces, patient mistreatment, intoxicated driving/texting while driving) by co-workers/supervisors at Antioch Rescue Squad (ARS) and Metro, and that supervisors/board knew and failed to act.
- Procedural posture: Third Amended Complaint pleads Title VII and IHRA claims plus state torts (negligent supervision/retention, assault & battery); defendants moved to dismiss and Metro moved to strike.
- Court previously dismissed §1983 claims and held IHRA preempts overlapping common-law claims; plaintiffs repleaded tort theories and added assault/battery counts.
- Plaintiffs allege volunteers (Banser, Soulak) and at least one paid employee (Volling at Metro); IWCA coverage differs between paid employees and volunteers.
- Key factual claim allowing tort recovery: defendants not only failed to discipline but allegedly knew of, ratified, and in some instances participated in misconduct, supporting theories of direct liability or express authorization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Article III/prudential) for tort/negligence claims | Plaintiffs allege concrete personal injuries (assaults, emotional distress, reputation, physical harms) from non‑sexual misconduct categories — thus they have standing | Defendants contend some alleged harms are generalized or speculative and thus plaintiffs lack standing for negligence counts | Court: Plaintiffs plausibly allege concrete, particularized injuries; standing satisfied as pleaded (accepting allegations and reasonable inferences) |
| IHRA preemption of tort claims | Plaintiffs: tort claims valid to the extent grounded in non‑gender, non‑civil‑rights misconduct (pranks, patient abuse, dangerous workplace) | Defendants: tort counts overlap with IHRA/Title VII and are preempted to the extent they mirror statutory claims | Court: IHRA preempts tort claims only to the extent they are "inextricably linked" to civil‑rights violations; non‑sexual misconduct tort theories survive |
| IWCA preemption (employees vs volunteers) | Plaintiffs: volunteers (Banser, Soulak) not IWCA‑covered so tort claims not preempted; Volling (paid) alleges express authorization to avoid exclusivity | Defendants: IWCA is exclusive remedy for workplace injuries — torts barred | Court: Banser & Soulak (volunteers) not IWCA‑covered so torts survive; Volling (paid) may be subject to IWCA but pleadings plausibly allege employer ratification/express authorization so intentional‑tort/direct‑liability theories survive; negligence-based counts for Volling dismissed as preempted |
| Vicarious liability / scope of employment for assault & battery | Plaintiffs: pervasive, tolerated, recurrent misconduct that occurred on work time/space and with employer awareness brings conduct within scope or supports direct liability/authorization | Defendants: assaults/batteries fall outside scope of employment so respondeat superior cannot apply | Court: Determination generally factbound; on pleadings, cannot rule as matter of law for Banser/Soulak; even if outside scope, direct‑liability (express authorization) claims survive; respondeat superior may be available depending on proof |
| Motion to strike inflammatory allegations (Metro) | Plaintiffs: challenged allegations are relevant to scope, knowledge, ratification, and plausibility of claims and necessary for discovery | Metro: certain paragraphs are scandalous, immaterial, prejudicial and should be stricken | Court: Denied. Allegations relevant to authorization, scope, and pattern of conduct; striking premature before discovery; not "no possible relation" to controversy |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollinan v. Fraternal Order of Police Chicago Lodge No. 7, 570 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2009) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard discussion)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility/notice pleading principles)
- Jajeh v. County of Cook, 678 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2012) (plaintiffs need not plead legal theories explicitly)
- Meerbrey v. Marshall Field & Co., 139 Ill.2d 455 (Ill. 1990) (IWCA exclusivity and exception where employer directly/expressly authorizes tort)
- Maksimovic v. Tsogalis, 177 Ill.2d 511 (Ill. 1997) (IHRA preemption for claims "inextricably linked" to civil‑rights violations)
- Adames v. Sheahan, 233 Ill.2d 276 (Ill. 2009) (scope‑of‑employment test using Restatement)