BOBBIE BARTLEY, AMANDA HIGH, AUDREY MAHER, LESA MCMANIGELL, NANCY MILLS, NIKOLE OZIER-CAIN and SHERRY RADER, Claimants, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimants alleged sexual harassment and equal protection violations by the Illinois Department of Military Affairs. The court dismissed the claim with prejudice, holding it was barred by res judicata because the same matters had been previously litigated and dismissed in federal district court.
Cases cited: Glisson v. State of Illinois, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 174 (1996); Larson v. State of Illinois, 50 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1 (1997); McNeil v. State of Illinois, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 432 (1995); Lehman v. State of Illinois, 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 178 (1991); People v. Bone, 82 Ill. 2d 282, 286 (1980); Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351 (1877)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Res Judicata - Res Judicata acts as an absolute bar to a subsequent action where a prior judgment rests on the merits not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat a claim, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.
- Res Judicata - Applies to previous decision of Federal District Court - Determination by the Federal District Court that the individual tortfeasors are precluded from liability in their official capacities is an absolute bar to the instant cause against the state under the doctrine of Res Judicata.
ORDER
STORINO, J. This cause coming before the Court on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, the matter having been briefed by the parties, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is granted and Claimants’ Complaint is dismissed with prejudice as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
[*224] Claimants filed a Complaint before this Court on June 2, 2001, alleging Respondent, Illinois Department of Military Affairs, violated Claimants’ right to equal protection under the Illinois Constitution and other statutory rights as a result of being subject to unlawful and discriminatory sexual harassment by certain individuals at Camp Lincoln in Springfield, Illinois. Claimants allege specific wrongdoing by certain supervisory male commanders and forward this claim against the Respondent for failure to enforce its rules and regulations governing the conduct of its officers in order to protect Claimants from the unlawful conduct of these individuals.
These same matters were previously pursued by Claimants before the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois in a proceeding against Respondent and the same supervisory male commanders, along with the U.S. Department of the Army and the Illinois National Guard. Claimants’ actions were ultimately dismissed by the District Court, either pursuant to a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the District Court held that Respondent was entitled to immunity from suit in federal court and also held that certain other immunities applied to the individual tort feasors precluding liability in their official capacities. Certainly the issues previously decided which preclude liability upon the individual tort feasors in their official capacities apply to Respondent, and therefore these matters are barred by the doctrine of res judicata for purposes of implicating liability upon Respondent under a claim of respondeat superior. See Glisson v. State of Illinois, 49 Ill. Ct.
Cl. 174 (1996); Larson v. State of Illinois, 50 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1 (1997); McNeil v.
State of Illinois, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 432 (1995); Lehman v. State of Illinois, 44 Ill. Ct.
Cl. 178 (1991).
Res judicata is a judicial doctrine designed to protect litigants from the burden of retrying an identical cause of action or issue with the same party or privy. People v. Bone, 82 Ill. 2d 282, 286 (1980) cert denied. Res judicata acts as an absolute bar to a subsequent action where a prior judgment rests on the merits not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose. Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351 (1877). The determination by the District Court that the individual tort feasors are precluded from liability in their official capacities is an absolute bar to the instant cause against the State under the doctrine of res judicata, and there is no cause of action stated by Claimants upon which relief could be granted. It is therefore ordered that this cause is dismissed with prejudice.