In 2007 Peter Palka was dismissed as a probationary police officer in the officer-training program at the Chicago Police Academy. He claims he was fired because of his Polish ethnicity. The City says he was terminated because he violated departmental rules and repeatedly flunked the firearms exam. Peter’s father, Tadeusz Palka, a Cook County Deputy Sheriff, contacted Matthew Tobias, Peter’s supervisor at the Chicago Police Academy, and tried to get his son reinstated. That effort failed.
Peter’s dismissal from the Academy set off a strange series of events. After Tobias rebuffed the elder Palka’s plea for his son’s reinstatement, an unidentified caller with an Eastern European accent placed an odd phone call to the school Tobias’s children attended, asking suspicious and disturbing questions about the children. Tobias suspected that Tadeusz was the caller, and at his request the Cook County Sheriff began a formal investigation. A disciplinary hearing was scheduled, but Tadeusz took early retirement just before it was held. He then sued Cook County and its Sheriff, the City of Chicago, and numerous city and county employees asserting various constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirmed the dismissal of that suit.
See Palka v. Shelton,
Litigation by the Palkas proliferated, however. While Palka I was pending in the district court, Peter filed a § 1983 suit against the City of Chicago and Tobias. Later, Peter and Tadeusz together filed suit against the City and County alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII. Peter’s § 1983 suit was largely resolved in favor of the defendants; the district court granted summary judgment for the City and entered several rulings narrowly circumscribing the remaining claim against Tobias. In response Peter moved to voluntarily dismiss his claim against Tobias. That motion was granted, and Peter appealed. In the joint Title VII case, the district court applied res judicata and dismissed the claims of both plaintiffs. The Palkas appealed. We consolidated the two appeals and now affirm the judgments in both cases.
I. Background
Much of the factual background is outlined in our decision in Palka I. We restate only the facts necessary to an understanding of the issues in the present appeals.
A. Peter’s Termination and Tadeusz’s § 1983 Suit
On February 1, 2007, Peter Palka was terminated from his position as a proba *431 tionary police officer in the officer-training program at the Chicago Police Academy. Matthew Tobias, the Assistant Deputy Superintendent of the Academy, recommended the termination to those higher up in the chain of command: Ellen Scrivner, the Deputy Superintendent of the Bureau of Administrative Services, and Bradford Woods, the Personnel Division Commander. Tobias told his superiors that Peter had violated departmental rules against lying, evasion, and deceit when he revealed confidential information to another recruit during a training exercise designed to test officers’ responses to harsh interrogations. Tobias’s recommendation was also based on Peter’s repeated inability to pass the firearms qualifying test, which was perhaps attributable to his (admitted) failure to read the department’s firearms manual (another rules violation). Peter maintains that he was fired because of his Polish national origin.
Soon after Peter was terminated from the Academy, his father, Tadeusz Palka, then a Cook County Deputy Sheriff, contacted Tobias and argued for his son’s reinstatement. Tobias refused, noting in particular Peter’s failure to read the firearms manual. Two months later, in May 2007, an unidentified male called the school Tobias’s children attended and asked suspicious questions about the children under the guise of being a “friend” who wanted to send flowers to the children for their birthdays. The school receptionist contacted Tobias about the strange call and told him that the caller had an Eastern European accent. Tobias suspected that Tadeusz was the caller and asked a colleague to investigate it. The colleague traced the call to a county building where Tadeusz sometimes worked.
Armed with this information, Tobias filed a complaint with the Sheriffs Department’s Office of Internal Affairs and accused Tadeusz of placing the call. A formal investigation ensued, and Tadeusz was placed on paid suspension. In due course Internal Affairs filed a charge with the Sheriffs Department’s Merit Board recommending that Tadeusz be terminated. Just prior to the Merit Board hearing, at the suggestion of his supervisor, Tadeusz took early retirement. In Palka I he claimed that he was wrongfully induced to take early retirement in violation of his constitutional rights.
In that lawsuit — the first in this series— Tadeusz asserted claims under § 1983 against the County, the Sheriff, the City and a number of city and county law-enforcement officers in their individual capacities, based on allegations that they violated his substantive and procedural due-process rights and his right to occupational liberty.
Palka I,
B. Peter’s § 1983 Suit
Shortly after Tadeusz filed his complaint in Palka /, Peter filed a similar suit under § 1983 against the City and Tobias in his individual capacity. Peter alleged that To-bias had discriminated against him on the basis of his Polish ethnicity. He claimed that ethnic animus was the real reason for Tobias’s recommendation that he be dismissed from the Academy and that the claimed performance problems were only pretext. Among other remedies, Peter sought reinstatement and back pay.
The defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion, but only in part. The court held that factual disputes about Tobias’s reasons for terminating Peter precluded summary judgment on the claim against Tobi
*432
as. But the court held that even if Peter could prove Tobias had a discriminatory motive for firing him, the City could not be held liable because Peter failed to adduce any evidence that Tobias was a municipal policymaker with final authority or that the City maintained a policy or custom of discrimination, as required for municipal liability under
Monell v. Department of Social Services,
The parties thereafter consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), who narrowed the scope of the relief available on the remaining claim. The magistrate judge held that Peter could not seek reinstatement as a remedy because Tobias was sued in his individual capacity and as such lacked authority to reinstate. Following this ruling, Peter moved for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The magistrate judge thought dismissal without prejudice at that late stage of the proceedings might prejudice Tobias and sought to clarify the terms of the dismissal. See Fed.R.CivP. 41(a)(2) C‘[A]n action may be dismissed at the plaintiffs request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.”). The judge said she would allow the voluntary dismissal of the claim against Tobias but would enter a final judgment dismissing the claims against the City with prejudice. Peter was given the opportunity to object to these terms but did not. The judge then dismissed the claims against the City with prejudice, dismissed the claim against Tobias without prejudice, and terminated the case. Peter appealed.
C. The Title VII Suit by Father and Son
While both § 1983 suits were proceeding in the district court, Tadeusz and Peter were pursuing administrative remedies before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in anticipation of filing Title VII claims against their former employers. In February 2009 each received a right-to-sue letter. By this time the district court had already dismissed Tadeusz’s § 1983 case, and his appeal was in its early stages. Peter’s § 1983 case, meanwhile, was still pending in the district court, although the court had entered summary judgment for the City.
On April 17, 2009, the Palkas jointly filed a third suit against the City and County alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. 1 The complaint alleged the same basic facts as the individual § 1983 suits. The case was functionally two Title VII lawsuits, one by each Palka against his former municipal employer. The complaint sought “declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief from discrimination in employment.”
The City and County eventually moved to dismiss on the basis of res judicata, and the district court granted the motions. The court held that the complaint “essentially combines the facts alleged in the separate prior complaints, and somewhat alters the telling of the story, but does not allege any new facts or events occurring after the Palkas’ termination by their employers.” The court rejected the Palkas’ argument that res judicata should not apply because the cases were based on different legal theories. The court also re *433 jeeted their contention that they could not bring their Title VII claims with their § 1983 suits because they had not yet received permission to sue from the EEOC. The court noted that the Palkas could have filed their EEOC claims earlier or asked to stay their § 1983 suits until they had their right-to-sue letters in hand. The Palkas appealed.
II. Discussion
Though the facts of the consolidated appeals overlap, the legal issues presented are distinct. We begin with Peter’s § 1983 case and then move to the Palkas’ joint Title VII suit.
A. Peter’s § 1983 Claims
Peter seeks review of the district court’s decision granting summary judgment for the City as well as the magistrate judge’s order excluding reinstatement as a remedy against Tobias. Summary judgment in the City’s favor was entirely appropriate; Peter has no evidence to support a Monell policy-or-eustom claim against the City. Peter’s voluntary dismissal of his claim against Tobias bars our review of the judge’s interlocutory order circumscribing the available remedies on that claim.
We note a jurisdictional matter first. The judgment below dismissed Peter’s claim against the City on the merits but dismissed his claim against Tobias without prejudice on Peter’s Rule 41(a) motion for voluntary dismissal. Dismissal of the latter claim without prejudice left Peter arguably free to refile it. This kind of split judgment ordinarily would not be considered “final” and therefore appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it does not wind up the entire litigation in the district court.
See ITOFCA, Inc. v. MegaTrans Logistics, Inc.,
However, when there is no chance that the case could be continued in the district court, the final-judgment rule is satisfied and we may take jurisdiction.
Id.
at 363 (“Whether a decision is final for purposes of § 1291 generally depends on whether the decision by the district court ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” (quotation marks omitted)). For example, where dismissed but revivable claims remain and would otherwise preclude appellate jurisdiction, we have permitted the party controlling those claims to “unequivocally dismiss[] [them] with prejudice” following an otherwise premature notice of appeal, thereby eliminating the jurisdictional defect.
India Breweries, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co.,
Peter’s claim against Tobias was dismissed on March 18, 2009, and Illinois law (which controls for § 1983 purposes) provides a one-year statute of limitations for refiling a voluntarily dismissed claim. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/13-217;
Jenkins v. Vill. of Maywood,
Our review of that order is de novo.
Cyrus v. Town of Mukwonago,
[t]o establish an official policy or custom, a plaintiff must show that his constitutional injury was caused by (1) the enforcement of an express policy of the [city], (2) a widespread practice that is so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law, or (3) a person with final policy-making authority.
Wragg,
Peter advances what can perhaps be described as an “inaction” theory of municipal liability. He argues that because To-bias’s recommendations regarding the dismissal of police recruits were generally approved and acted on by officials above him in the supervisory chain, the City may be held liable for its failure to stop Tobias’s unconstitutional discrimination. For support he relies almost exclusively on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in
Arendale v. City of Memphis,
(1) the existence of a clear and persistent pattern of discrimination by municipal employees; (2) notice or constructive notice on the part of the City; (3) the City’s tacit approval of the unconstitutional conduct, such that its deliberate indifference in its failure to act can be said to amount to an official policy of inaction; and (4) that the City’s custom was the “moving force” or direct causal link in the constitutional deprivation.
Id. at 599-600.
To us this looks more like a fact-specific application of ordinary Monell policy-or-custom doctrine than a new “inaction” theory of municipal liability under § 1983. Regardless, and without endorsing the “custom or policy of inaction” theory Peter urges upon us, the claim cannot survive summary judgment. Peter’s evidence is meager, consisting only of his own subjective allegation that Tobias discriminated against him; a similar allegation by Wojciech Czarniecki, another Polish officer who was terminated by Tobias; and some *435 “statistics” regarding recruits Tobias terminated.
To begin, the statistical evidence is worthless. It is simply a series of numbers without any context: “Of 51 recruits Tobias recommended for termination, all of whom were terminated by the Chicago Police Department from the Academy, the breakdown was as follows: white 11; black 14; female 16; Asian 3; foreign ethnic 7; Hispanic 14; Middle East 1.” It is entirely unclear what this evidence is meant to show. Is Tobias biased against men, who account for more than two-thirds of those terminated? Or is he biased against women because nearly one-third of those he fired were women and it is perhaps plausible that women account for less than one-third of the total number of recruits? Are “foreign ethnic” recruits included in the “white” group or are they separate? And, most fundamentally, how does this evidence show that Tobias was ethnically motivated? Without any context, these statistics are meaningless.
That leaves two allegations of ethnic discrimination by Tobias: Peter’s own termination and the termination of Wojciech Czarniecki, another probationary officer of Polish descent. A different panel of this court has affirmed the dismissal of Czarniecki’s discrimination claim against the City.
See Czarniecki v. City of Chicago,
Peter also contends that Tobias was a final policy-maker, but this assertion is counterfactual. Tobias’s recommendations were reviewed by Bradford Woods, the Chicago Police Department’s Personnel Division Commander. Because Tobias’s decisions were subject to review and implementation by a higher authority, he cannot be a final policymaker for purposes of municipal § 1983 liability.
See, e.g., Vodak v. City of Chicago,
Peter also asks us to review the magistrate judge’s order barring reinstatement *436 as a remedy in his claim against Tobias. 3 He maintains that Tobias’s presence in the case is a mere “legal fiction” because the City has defended and would indemnify him if necessary. He insists that whatever relief was available against the City should also be available against Tobias, even though he sued Tobias in his personal capacity.
This argument wouldn’t get very far on the merits, but we cannot consider it. Peter sought and obtained the voluntary dismissal of his claim against Tobias. As we have noted, this effort to manufacture finality, when coupled with the expiration of the statute of limitations on the claim against Tobias, is sufficient to establish appellate jurisdiction over the merits dismissal of Peter’s claim against the City, but it doesn’t supply jurisdiction over an interlocutory order issued in connection with the claim Peter voluntarily dismissed.
See Chavez v. Ill. State Police,
In this situation, it makes no difference whether the dismissal under Rule 41(a) was with or without prejudice.
See Cauley,
B. Peter and Tadeusz’s Title VII Claims
In the second case before us, Peter and Tadeusz claim they were the victims of *437 employment discrimination in violation of Title VII based on their Polish ethnicity. The district court dismissed on res judicata grounds, concluding that the claims were based on the same set of facts that gave rise to each Palka’s individual § 1983 suit.
Res judicata is a rule “of public policy and of private peace.”
Hart Steel Co. v. R.R. Supply Co.,
This case is a quintessential example of claim splitting in duplicative lawsuits, a litigation tactic that res judicata doctrine is meant to prevent. Identity of the parties is present because Peter sued the City in both his § 1983 and Title VII cases; likewise, Tadeusz sued the County in
Polka I
and here. That the Palkas’ earlier suits included additional parties (e.g., Tobias, the Cook County Sheriff, etc.) is irrelevant.
See Czarniecki,
The Palkas offer three arguments for not applying res judicata here, but none is persuasive. First, they argue that the district court applied the incorrect test for determining whether there is an identity of the causes of action. The district court applied the “same transaction test,” which inquires whether the two suits share the same operative facts; the Palkas argue for application of what they see as a looser “same evidence” test under Illinois law. At issue here, however, is “whether an earlier
federal
judgment has preclusive effect on a subsequent federal claim,” and federal res judicata principles apply to this question.
Czamiecki,
Second, the Palkas argue that one or more of the exceptions to res judicata outlined in the
Restatement (Second) of Judgments
applies here. In particular they rely on the section of the
Restatement
that states that the rule against claim splitting does not apply where “[t]he judgment in the first action was plainly inconsistent with the fair and equitable imple
*438
mentation of a statutory or constitutional scheme, or it is the sense of the scheme that the plaintiff should be permitted to split his claim.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 26(d). The Palkas raised this argument for the first time in their reply brief; it is, therefore, waived.
Bodenstab v. Cnty. of Cook,
Finally, the Palkas argue — without citation to authority — that as a practical matter it was impossible for them to preserve their Title VII claims because they were waiting for their right-to-sue letters from the EEOC. We have repeatedly rejected this argument.
See Czarniecki,
In rejecting the Palkas’ argument against res judicata, the district court observed that the last of these options— seeking a stay of their § 1983 actions while awaiting their right-to-sue letters — would have been a viable way for the Palkas to avoid claim splitting. On appeal the Palkas dismiss the court’s suggestion as a “totally ridiculous statement.” They insist that “people who practice law for a living know” that no judge would ever allow such a stay. Insulting the court is never appropriate; this kind of argument crosses the line. Moreover, in light of what we have said about seeking a stay in this situation, the argument is baseless.
See, e.g., Herrmann,
We will never know what might have happened had the Palkas asked to stay their § 1983 cases until right-to-sue letters were forthcoming. As things stand, they split their claims and now ask us to refrain from applying settled res judicata doctrine. We decline the invitation. The district court was right to enter judgment for the City and County on res judicata grounds.
Affirmed.
Notes
. By this time, the magistrate judge in Peter's § 1983 case had dismissed the entire suit. Indeed, on the same day that the Palkas filed their Title VII action, Peter filed his notice of appeal in his § 1983 case.
. The current version of this statute does not expressly refer to voluntary dismissals, but the law deleting that reference was held unconstitutional in its entirety in
Best v. Taylor
*434
Machine Works,
. Peter contends that the district court's ruling also precluded him from seeking a "front pay” remedy from Tobias. The court’s order does not reference front pay.
. There is a narrow and rarely invoked exception to the general rule that an order granting voluntary dismissal is not appealable. If the district court imposes conditions on the voluntary dismissal, and if those conditions amount to “legal prejudice,” the plaintiff then may have grounds for appeal.
See Parker v. Freightliner Corp.,
. The Palkas also invoke other res judicata exceptions outlined in the Restatement but fail to explain how they apply.