Cortright v. Doyle

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 1st District Appellate » 2008 » Cortright v. Doyle

Cortright v. Doyle

State: Illinois

Court: 1st District Appellate

Docket No: 1-07-1339 Rel

Case Date: 11/18/2008

Preview:SECOND DIVISION NOVEMBER 18, 2008

1-07-1339 MARGARET CORTRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAYNE DOYLE, CAROLYN BAILEY, and STEVEN MINTER, Defendants-Appellees ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.

)

No. 01 L 2886

) (The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services ) and Rocco J. Claps, Director of the Department of Human ) Rights, an Agency of the State of Illinois, ) ) Defendants). )

Honorable Martin S. Agran, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE CUNNINGHAM delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff Margaret Cortright appeals from the circuit court's November 21, 2006 order dismissing with prejudice her intentional tort claims (counts I, II, and III) and reaffirming the dismissal of her discrimination claims (counts IV, V and VI) under a previous ruling. Cortright v. Doyle, No. 01 L 02886 (Cir. Ct. Cook Co.). On appeal, the plaintiff alleged that: (1) the intentional tort claims were not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity; (2) the intentional tort claims were not preempted by the Illinois Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (West 1998)); (3) the defendants' actions were not subject to absolute immunity; and (4) she has adequately pleaded a claim for all of the intentional torts. For the following reasons, we affirm.

1-07-1339 BACKGROUND Plaintiff Margaret Cortright suffers from a degenerative hearing condition called Meniere's disease and other related conditions of tinnitus and vertigo. Her symptoms include hearing loss, ringing in the ears and dizziness--all of which are exacerbated by stress but can be controlled with prescription medication and hearing aids. However, the prescription medication has a tendency to cause drowsiness. The plaintiff was an employee of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) for over 20 years until her retirement in April 2001. From 1994 until her retirement, the plaintiff was a public service administrator at DCFS whose responsibilities included supervising 12 employees. Defendants Jayne Doyle, Carolyn Bailey and Steven Minter (collectively the supervisors) worked at DCFS during the relevant periods of the plaintiff's tenure. In 1997, Doyle became the plaintiff's direct supervisor, and subsequently in 1998, Bailey and Minter also gained supervisory positions and authority over the plaintiff. The supervisors were aware of the plaintiff's medical conditions and the side effects of her medication. The plaintiff had consistently received "Outstanding/Exceptional" ratings on her annual performance evaluations up until March 1998, when Doyle gave her a lesser rating of "Accomplished/Satisfactory" despite, allegedly, that the quality of the plaintiff's performance had remained the same. In April 1999, Minter rated the plaintiff's overall performance as

"Unacceptable" and did not give any particular category a rating higher than "Acceptable"--ratings that were supposedly unprecedented in the plaintiff's evaluations during her approximately 20 years 2

1-07-1339 of service at DCFS. The overall rating of "Unacceptable" disqualified the plaintiff from receiving a raise at that time. The plaintiff's most recently amended complaint alleged that beginning in 1998, the supervisors yelled at and demeaned the plaintiff both in private and in the presence of co-workers. They allegedly called her "stupid" or "stupidvisor" regularly and reprimanded the plaintiff for complaining of the perceived mistreatment. The plaintiff claimed that the supervisors falsely reprimanded her for incompetence, inability to understand management directives and inability to comprehend what was said at meetings. Allegedly, the supervisors set unreasonable task deadlines and chastised the plaintiff when she failed to meet them. Bailey also allegedly threatened the plaintiff with progressive discipline and accused her of having poor judgment. The supervisors issued formal reprimands and an eight-day suspension to her for sleeping at meetings, which the plaintiff denied doing. The complaint also stated that Doyle issued a memorandum to the plaintiff threatening further discipline and possible termination for her continued unacceptable job performance. The stresses of these events allegedly caused emotional distress and further deterioration of the plaintiff's medical condition. This case has a long and complicated procedural history. The plaintiff, acting pro se, attempted to file a charge of discrimination with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) in 1998 which IDHR refused to accept. In 1999, the plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and subsequently received a notice of right to sue from the EEOC. 3

1-07-1339 In January 2000, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the Illinois court of claims against the supervisors and DCFS alleging age and disability discrimination. Cortright v. Department of Children & Family Services, No. 00 CC 2519. The court of claims dismissed the federal claims and claims against the supervisors in their individual capacities for want of jurisdiction in its February 2001 order. To the extent the claims were based on the Illinois Human Rights Act (Human Rights Act) (775 ILCS 5/1

Download Cortright v. Doyle.pdf