Case Title: Michael McDonnell v. State of Illinois, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: a-118-98

State: new-jersey

Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Date: 2000-03-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
(This syllabus is not part of the opinion of the Court. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Supreme Court. Please note that, in the interests of brevity, portions of any opinion may not have been summarized). Argued January 19, 2000 -- Decided March 2, 2000 PER CURIAM The issue before the Court is whether Michael McDonnell, a New Jersey resident and former employee of the State of Illinois at the New Jersey field office of the Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR), may sue the State of Illinois in a New Jersey court for age discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). McConnell was hired by the IDOR in November 28, 1988 to work in its regional field office in Paramus, New Jersey. About a year after he began his employment with IDOR, McDonnell received a promotion. He never received another promotion, which he claimed was a result of age discrimination. McDonnell was terminated from his position on August 10, 1993 at the age of fifty-two. McDonnell filed a complaint alleging age discrimination against the State of Illinois and certain supervisory personnel who were either New Jersey or Illinois residents. McDonnell sought relief for the following: 1) alleged violations of the IDOR Employee Handbook Grievance Procedure; 2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; 3) negligence; and 4) violations of the Employer Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Defendants moved to dismiss all counts of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for summary judgment on the emotional distress and negligence claims. That motion was denied. On defendants' motion for reconsideration, the court dismissed McDonnell's complaint finding that: 1) Illinois law applied; 2) New Jersey did not have jurisdiction; 3) the LAD did not apply to the State of Illinois; 4) McDonnell failed to comply with the notice provisions of the New Jersey Tort Claims Act; 5) McDonnell failed to present evidence to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; and 6) an ERISA claim must be brought in federal court and, therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction over that claim. McDonnell appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court found that the New Jersey court has personal jurisdiction over the Illinois defendants and the State of Illinois because of the clear minimum contacts with this State. The court also found that sovereign immunity did not bar New Jersey courts from exercising personal jurisdiction over the State of Illinois. The Appellate Division then addressed whether the doctrine of comity would prohibit New Jersey from exercising jurisdiction. To make that determination, the court looked at the public policy of both states. The court reasoned that both states have a strong public policy against discrimination. The Illinois statute, known as the Illinois Human Rights Act (HRA), prohibits discrimination in employment. However, the Appellate Division found that, in view of the clear language of the statute, as well as its stated purpose, the Illinois Legislature intended that in this context, the HRA should apply only to Illinois residents who work for employers within the State of Illinois. Thus, although Illinois has a strong public policy against discrimination, the HRA does not apply to McDonnell. The court noted that the LAD is to be liberally construed and that, in the area of employment discrimination, should apply to another state operating within this State's borders and employing this State's residents. To construe the LAD otherwise would be irrational and expressly contrary to the purposes of the statute. Thus, the Appellate Division concluded that, when considering the public policies of New Jersey and Illinois in these circumstances, principles of comity do not require that New Jersey decline jurisdiction over Illinois. This State's strong policy against discrimination and the lack of an available remedy to McConnell under Illinois law compels that New Jersey exercise jurisdiction here. In determining the appropriate choice of law, the Appellate Division noted that McDonnell is a New Jersey resident, the basis of his claims arose in New Jersey, three of the defendants live in New Jersey, and Illinois maintains an office in New Jersey. Based on those factors, the panel determined that New Jersey has the more significant relationship to the parties and the litigation. Therefore, the Appellate Division held that New Jersey law is the appropriate law to apply to McDonnell's viable claims. Based on its conclusion that New Jersey has jurisdiction and that New Jersey law applies, the Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of McDonnell's LAD claim as well as the dismissal of the claim for alleged violations of the IDOR Employee Handbook Grievance Procedure. The Appellate Division also found that the trial judge erroneously concluded that McDonnell failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Tort Claims Act since claims of discrimination are not subject to the notice requirements of the Act. The court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and ERISA claims. The Supreme Court granted certification. HELD: The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Braithwaite in his written opinion. A New Jersey resident and former employee of the State of Illinois employed by the State of Illinois to work in a New Jersey field office may sue the State of Illinois in a New Jersey court for age discrimination under the LAD. 1. The Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit a state from being sued in another state's courts, nor does the Full Faith and Credit Clause require the forum state to apply another state's law concerning sovereign immunity if to do so would contravene a significant public policy of the forum state. (pp. 1-4) 2. Certain provisions of the HRA suggest that McDonnell could have asserted a cause of action under that statute, subject to the limitation that the claim be filed only before the Illinois Human Rights Commission, and that monetary damages are limited to actual damages for injury of loss, back pay, and attorneys' fees. Nevertheless, because the HRA requires discrimination claims to be filed within 180 days of when a claimant discovers his or her injury, McDonnell would have had no remedy under the HRA as his claim would have been time barred. (pp. 4-5) 3. The Appellate Division's determination not to apply comity was based on: the unavailability of redress for McDonnell under the HRA; the conclusion that the LAD applied to the Illinois defendants; its conclusion that the LAD would apply to the State of New Jersey if it discriminated against a public employee in violation of the statute; and New Jersey's strong public policy against discrimination in employment. These reasons argue persuasively against dismissing McDonnell's suit on comity grounds. Nor would the refusal to apply comity be disruptive to Illinois' revenue collection activity. Illinois is free to continue to collect tax revenues from New Jersey sources so long as it does not violate the LAD by discriminating against employees who live in New Jersey. On remand, the award of reinstatement is expressly precluded in order not to affront Illinois sovereignty. (pp. 5-9) Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG and VERNIERO join in this PER CURIAM opinion. SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 118 September Term 1998 MICHAEL J. MCDONNELL, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; SAMUEL MCGAW; MICHAEL SCADUTO; JOE BARTLETTI; JUAN MORALES; FRANK NUGNES; and BRIAN MCGRAIL, Defendants-Appellants. Argued January 19, 2000-- Decided March 2, 2000 On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 319 N.J. Super. 324 (1999). Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General of Illinois, a member of the Illinois bar, andStephen E. Klausner argued the cause for appellants (Klausner, Hunter & Rosenberg, attorneys; Mr. Klausner and David L. Rosenberg, of counsel and on the brief). Michael J. McDonnell argued the cause pro se. PER CURIAM We affirm the judgment and disposition of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Braithwaite's thoughtful and comprehensive opinion. McDonnell v. State of Illinois, 319 N.J. Super. 324 (App. Div. 1999). We add these further observations, however, in view of the strongly asserted views expressed by the Solicitor General of Illinois, appearing pro hoc vice before our Court, that plaintiff's cause of action against the State of Illinois, the Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR), and individual IDOR employees should be dismissed on comity grounds. As noted by the Appellate Division opinion, id. at 333-35, the United States Supreme Court in Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 425-26, 99 S. Ct. 1182, 1191, 59 L. Ed. 2d 416, 425-26 (1979), concluded that although the Eleventh Amendment bars suits in federal courts against a state by citizens of another state, it does not prohibit a state from being sued in another state's courts; nor does the full faith and credit clause require the forum State to apply another State's law concerning sovereign immunity if to do so would contravene a significant public policy of the forum State. The Court noted that the question whether one State should defer to the laws of a sister's State consistently has been regarded as a matter of State policy, not constitutional mandate: The intimate union of these states, as members of the same great political family; the deep and vital interests which bind them so closely together; should lead us, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to presume a greater degree of comity, and friendship, and kindness towards one another, than we should be authorized to presume between foreign nations. And when (as without doubt must occasionally happen) the interest or policy of any state requires it to restrict the rule, it has but to declare its will, and the legal presumption is at once at an end. [Id. at 426, 99 S. Ct. at 1182, 59 L. Ed. 2d at 428 (quoting Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. 519, 590, 13 Pet. 519, 590, 10 L. Ed. 274 (1839).] Accordingly, the Court in Hall encouraged but did not compel states to accord deference to each others laws as a matter of comity: It may be wise policy, as a matter of harmonious interstate relations, for States to accord each other immunity or to respect any established limits on liability. They are free to do so. But if a federal court were to hold, by inference from the structure of our Constitution and nothing else, that California is not free in this case to enforce its policy of full compensation, that holding would constitute the real intrusion on the sovereignty of the States--and the power of the people--in our Union. [440 U.S. at 426-427, 99 S. Ct. at 1191, 59 L. Ed. 2d at 429.] In addressing the comity issue, the Appellate Division concluded that to require plaintiff to pursue his claims in Illinois courts pursuant to the Illinois Human Rights Act (HRA), 775 Ill Comp. Stat. 5/1-101 to 5/10-103 (West 1993) would leave plaintiff remediless because the definition of employee under the HRA applies only to individuals performing services for remuneration within the State for an employer. 319 N.J. Super. at 335 (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, the court concluded that the HRA would not afford plaintiff a remedy. Id. at 336. We note, however, that the HRA defines a Public Employee as an employee of the State, agency or department thereof, unit of local government, school district, instrumentality or political subdivision. 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-101 (H). We also note that the HRA guarantees and secures several rights enumerated in Article 1, Section 17 of the Illinois Constitution, including the right to be free from discrimination. 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/1-102(F). Those provisions of the HRA suggest persuasively that plaintiff could have asserted a cause of action in Illinois under that statute, subject to the limitation that the claim be filed only before the Illinois Human Rights Commission, 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/8-111(c), and that monetary damages are limited to actual damages for injury or loss, back pay, and attorneys' fees. 775 I11. Comp. Stat. 5/8A-104(B),(C), (G). Nevertheless, because the HRA requires discrimination claims to be filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights within 180 days of when a claimant discovers his injury, 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7A-102(A)(1), we also conclude that plaintiff would have no remedy under the HRA because his claim would be time barred. Our courts' precedents on the applicability of comity focus on an evaluation of the laws and policies of New Jersey and those of the affected state. City of Philadelphia v. Austin, 86 N.J. 55, 64 (1981); Baldwin Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of Warwick, N.Y., 226 N.J. Super. 549, 553 (App. Div. 1988). Decisions by other state courts to extend comity to a sister state often reflect a determination that the recognition of the sister state's immunity would not offend the policies of the forum state. See, e.g., University of Iowa Press v. Urrea, 440 S.E.2d 203 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (recognizing Iowa's sovereign immunity under Iowa Tort Claims Act as a matter of comity does not offend public policy of Georgia whose Statutes accord comparable immunity to Georgia public entities); Reed v. University of North Dakota, 543 N.W.2d 106 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996) (holding that recognition of North Dakota's sovereign immunity law would not offend public policies of Minnesota); Hawsey, III v. Louisiana Dep't of Social Servs., 934 S.W.2d 723 (Tex. App. 1996) (dismissing plaintiffs libel and false imprisonment suit on comity grounds and noting similarity between Texas and Louisiana sovereign immunity provisions); Jackett v. Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power, 771 P.2d 1074 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (dismissing plaintiff's tort action on comity grounds and emphasizing congruity of Utah and California sovereign immunity statutes). Courts that have declined to extend comity to sister states have stressed the fact that the forum state's law would not provide its own state with such immunity, or that the forum state's policies would be disserved by a recognition of comity. See Head v. Platte County, Missouri, 749 P.2d 6, 10 (Kan. 1988) (declining to extend immunity to Missouri under comity principles because to do so would result in granting greater immunity to our sister state than the immunity which our citizens through the legislature have bestowed upon our state government ); Ehrlich Bober & Co., Inc. v. University of Houston, 404 N.E.2d 726, 730 (N.Y. 1980) (declining to afford comity based on Texas institution's assertion of sovereign immunity because suit was based on commercial transaction that occurred primarily in New York and New York's interest naturally embraces a very strong policy of assuring access to a forum for redress of injuries arising out of transactions spawned here ); Morrison v. Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc. 657 N.Y.S.2d 721 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) (declining to apply comity and recognize immunity under South Carolina Tort Claims Act where New York law would not extend immunity to New York in comparable circumstances). Illinois contends that our refusal to apply comity and dismiss plaintiff's suit against the Illinois defendants would be disruptive to Illinois' revenue collection activity, a basic state governmental function. We perceive no such disruption. Illinois is free to continue to collect tax revenue due to it from New Jersey sources provided it does so without discriminating against employees who live in New Jersey in violation of the LAD. We acknowledge the possibility that the remedy of reinstatement authorized by the LAD, N.J.S.A. 10:5-17 might constitute an affront to Illinois' sovereignty and we expressly preclude the award of reinstatement on remand. In all other respects, we are persuaded that the Appellate Division's refusal to extend comity to Illinois and to remand plaintiff's suit to the Law Division for trial constitutes the appropriate disposition of this appeal. CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES O'HERN, GARIBALDI, STEIN, COLEMAN, LONG, and VERNIERO join in this opinion. NO. A-118 MICHAEL J. MCDONNELL, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; SAMUEL MCGAW; MICHAEL SCADUTO; JOE BARTLETTI; JUAN MORALES; FRANK NUGNES; and BRIAN MCGRAIL, Defendants-Appellants. DECIDED March 2, 2000 Chief Justice Poritz