## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 10

- 2837& 10

- 3054 J ANICE D RAPER, B RAD C LEARWATER, an d J ULI E N EP OS CHL AN, P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v. T IMO THY M ARTIN , etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees. A NN L IBRI, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. P AT R I CK J. Q UI NN, Gov erno r o fthe St at e o f Ill in ois , etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No s. 06- 3138 &06-3167

—Jean ne E . Sc ottand Ric har d M il ls, Judg es.
A RGUED O CT OB ER 18, 2011

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 30, 2011

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, an d R IPPLE an d K ANN E , C ircu it Judges .2 N os. 10

- 2837& 10

- 3054

P lain t i ff- D rap er’s letter co nta ined on e ad d ition al p hr ase 1 in d ic a tin g t h a t th e a b o lis h m en t w a s “ d u e t o la ck o f w o rk .” The other three noti ces did not contai n thi s phrase. K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . In t w o separ ate sui ts, a tot al off o urf o r merI l l i no i s De pa r t men to fT r a ns po r t a t i on (“ID O T ”) e m p loy ee s alleg ed th ey w er e w ro n gfu lly te rm inated be cause ofthei r pol i ti calbel i ef s a nd party a ffi l i ati o n. I n e ac h c as e, the di st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d the de f en dan ts ’ mot i o n f o r su m m ar y j udg m en t o n the g r o und th atI l l i no i s’ s tw o - y ea r s ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns b ar r ed th e p l a i n t i ff s ’ c l a i ms . We a ffi r m.

I. B ACK GR OUN D The sta te ofI l l i noi s fac ed se ri ous b ud get ar y c hal l enges n earthe end offi scal

- yea r 2004
. To a dd re ss the pr oj ecte d b u d g e ts h o r t f a l l, th e d r a ft e r s o fth e 2 0 0 5 b u d g e ts o u g ht to “ [ s ] t r e a ml i ne o pe r a t i o ns a nd i mpr o v e e ffi c i e nc y b y c on so lid at in g fu n c ti o n s a n d reo rg an izin g op er at ion s.” Stripp in g a w ay th e eup he m ism s, th e bu d get called for a si gni fi cant s taffr educti on, i ncl ud i ng 19 0 e m plo yee l ayo ff s atI DOT. Al tho ugh there i s s o me di s pu t e ab o utwh e the r I DOT actual l y c re ate d a r eor gani zati on pl an, i t i s undis pu ted th at p lain tiffs Jan ice D ra p er , B ra d C lea rw at er , Ju lie N eposchl an, and A nn Libr i ( col l ecti vel y the “Pla i nti ff s”) r e c e i v e d l a y o ff n o t i c e s n o l a t e r th a n J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 4. The w ri tte n n ot i ce r ecei ved by each e m plo yee was i denti cal in all m at er ial re sp ec ts , st at in g: 1N os. 10

- 2837& 10

- 3054 3

T he d istrict cou rt rep laced D efend an t-M artin w ith 2 c u r r e n tI DO T Se c r e t a r y , Ga r y Ha n n i n g , p u r s u a n tt o F e d. R. C iv . P . 25 (d ). Plai nti f fL ib ri does not app eal counts IV thr oug h V I, w hich 3 all relat e to her att em pt to c ert ify a cl ass ofte rm inat ed ID O T em p loy ees. The De p ar tm ent i s cur re ntl y underg oi ng m ate ri al re or gani zati ons. Your posi ti on . . . i s t ar get ed f or abol i shm ent. The Departm ent has no vacancie s to off eryo u at thi s ti m e. There f or e, i t i s with re gr et th at I in for m you th at you w ill be la id off

. . . eff ecti ve cl ose o fbusi ness J une 30, 20 04. On June 3 0, 20 06, exact l y t w o years afterthe eff ecti ve d ate of their term inations , plaintiff s D rap er, Clearw ater, a nd Ne po s c hl a n ( the “Dra perP l a i nt i ff s ” ) fi l e d a two
- co untc o m pl ai ntpur su an t to 42 U. S
. C. § 1 98 3 i n the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cour t f or t h e CentralDis tr i ct o f I l l i noi s. I DO T m anage rs Ti m othy M ar tin, S cot t Doubet, 2 Rober t M i l l ett e, and Robi n Bla c k, and I DO T contr acto r M i chaelS tout w er e n am ed as defe nd ants ( the “ Draper Defe nd ants” )
. The DraperPl ai nti ff s fi rs t a l lege d that thei r ter m i nati ons w er e pol i ti cal l y m oti vate d i n vi ol ati on o f th e F i r st Am en dm en t, an d se co nd, th at they w ere denie d a pro pertyi nter esti n thei r j obs i n vi ol ati on o f th e F o ur te en thAm en dm en t. On si m i l arg r o unds , Pl ai ntiff Libr i fi l ed an ei ght- count c om pla i nt i n I l l i noi s s tat e 3 co ur t na m i ngM ar tin, Sto ut, a nd Do ube t an d a ddi ng4 N os. 10

- 2837& 10

- 3054

Th e di s t r i c tc ou r tr e pl a c e d De f e nd a nt
- Bl a goj e vi c h f or Go v- 4 er n o r P a tr ic k J. Q u in n p u rs u a n t to F ed . R . C iv . P . 25 (d ). then- G ov er nor Rod Bla goj evi ch and I DO T m anage r 4 J a c o b Mi l l e r a s d e f e n d a n t s ( th e “ L ib r i De f e n d a n t s ” )
. The Libr i

- De f e nd a nt s r e mov e d the c o mpl a i ntt o fe de r al cour t a nd the dist ri ct c ourtexer c ise d supplem entalj uri sdict i on o verthe sta te- l aw cl ai m s. I n bo thc as es , the De f en dan ts move d f o r s um m ary j ud gm en t a rguin g Ill inois’s stat ut e ofl i m i ta ti o ns ba r r ed Pl ai nt i ff s’ c l ai m s. J udg e S co ttg r an te d the Draper- Defe nd ant’ s s um m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on o n J ul y 6 , 2 01 0, and J udg e M i l l s si m i l ar l y g r an te d the Libr i

- Defe nd ant’ s s um m ar y j ud gm ent m otion o n J uly15 , 20 10 . Th e P lain tiffs in b ot h ca se s f i l e d t h is t im ely appeal, and w e co nsol i dated the case s.

II. A NA LYSIS S um m ar y j udg m en t i s appr o pr i at e o nl y w hen “ th e m o va nts ho ws tha t th er e i s no g en ui ne d ispu te a s to a ny m at er ialf act and the m ova nt i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m at te r ofl aw . ” F ed. R. Ci v. P. 56 ( a)
. W e r evi ew gr ants ofsum m ar y j ud gm ent d en o vo , B er ry v. Ch icago Transi t A uth. , 6 1 8 F
. 3 d 6 8 8 , 6 9 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) , v i e wi n gt he r ec o r d i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to th e Pl ai nt i ff s an d d ra w in g a ll rea so n ab le in fer en c es in t h eir fav or , M c Ca nn v. Ir oq uoi s M e m ’ l Hos p. , 6 2 2 F .3d 745, 752 (7th Cir. 20 1 0 )
. Al tho ugh we h a v e p r e v i o us l y c a ut i o ne d a g a i ns t w eig h in g e vid en c e a t s u m m ar y jud gm en t, Kodi s h v
.N os. 10

- 2837& 10

- 3054 5

In a fo u r-s en te n ce co n cl u d in g p a ra g ra p h , th e P la in tiffs 5 s um m ar i l y a rg u e tha twe s houl d appl y the doc t ri ne of equit able t oll ing t o the ext ent thatw e find thei r c lai m s barred by the s tatute ofl im it a tio n s. Se e M ul l v. AR CO Dur e t he ne Pla st i cs , Inc. , 78 4 F
. 2d 2 84 , 29 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 86 ) ( equi t abl e t ol l i ng f ocuses on “the plaint iff ’s ex cusable i gnorance ofthe l im it ation s pe riod an d o n l a c k o f p reju d ice to th e d efend an t”). B u t, the Pla intiff s f ail to o ffer an y reco rd citation s o r an aly sis s uppor t i ng s uc h a c l ai m an d we “wi l l no thun t th ro u g h th e re co rd ” lo o k in g for co r r o b o r a tin g ev id en ce . G ro ss v. Tow n of C ic er o , Ill. , 6 1 9 F
. 3 d 6 9 7, 7 0 5 ( 7 t h C i r . 2 0 1 0 )
. Ac c o r di n g l y , we dee m the i r undeve l ope d a rg um en twai ved a nd we ne ed n ot co n sid er it. See C ra w

f or d v. C ountryw i de H ome L oa n s, Inc. , 647 F .3d 64 2 , 65 0 (7t h C ir . 20 1 1 ). O akbrookTerrace Fire P rot. D is t. , 60 4 F
. 3d 49 0, 50 7 ( 7th C ir. 2010 ) , w e have al so sai d that “a f actual dispute is

‘ genui ne’ o nl y i fa r eas onabl e j ury coul d fi nd f orei ther party, ” SM S D e m ag Akti e nge s e l l s ch af tv. M at e r i al Sc i s . Corp. , 565 F.3d 365, 368 (7th Cir. 2009). T he sole issu e f o r ou r review i s w he th er the P lai nt iffs fi l ed thei r com pla i nts withi n the appropri ate st atute ofl i m i tat i ons w i nd ow . In I l l i noi s, the sta tute ofl i m i ta- 5 t i o ns pe r i o d f o r § 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms i s t wo y e a r s , 7 3 5 I LCS 5/ 13 -20 2; Je nki ns v. Vi l l
. of M aywood, 50 6 F
. 3d 622, 62 3 ( 7th C ir. 2007 ), an d th e claim acc rue s “w he n the p la in tiff knows orsho uld know t h at hi s o r her const i tuti onal ri ghts have been vi ol ate d,” H i l e m an v . M a ze, 36 7 F
. 3d 694, 696 (7th Cir. 2004) ( q uot i ng Kel l y v. C i ty of Chi cago , 4 F. 3d 509, 51 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)). W e u se a t w o- ste p testto d eterm ine th e accru al d a t e: (1) w e iden tify the i njury6 N os. 10

- 2837& 10

- 3054

The Plaint iff s att em pt to c onst rue P ott er a s h o l di n g the 6 s t atut e ofl i m i t at i ons be gi ns ac c ru i ng o n the e f f ec t i ve dat e of t er m i nation. Thi s m i s s t at es the ho l di ng i n P ott er . I ns t e a d, P ott eradd res se s a Tit le V II regulat ion, 29 C. F. R
. § 1614. 105, whic h pr ovi des thatfede ra l em pl oye es fea ri ng di s c ri m i nat i on m u st “initiate con tact w ith a[n E E O C ] C ou nselo r w ithin 45 day s o f the date ofthe m att er al le ged to be d is cri m inat ory or , i n t h e c a s e o f p e r s o n n e l a c t i o n , wi t h i n 4 5 da y s o ft he eff ect i ve dat e ofthe ac t i on. ” Be c aus e t he pl ai nt i f fi n Pot te r did n otbr i ng h er ac t i on t o the EEO C withi n 4 5 da ys ofthe ter m in a tio n eff ect ive date, w e hel d that her com plaintw as tim e-b a rr ed

. P ott er, 445 F. 3d at 1007. and (2 ) we deter m i ne wh en the p l ai nti ffco uld have su ed for t h at inju ry . H i l e m an , 36 7 F
. 3d at 696. I n d iscrim in a t ory disch arge cas es, th e plaintiff s’ i njury coi nci des with the deci si on t o l ayo ffthe pla i nti ff s, not th e a c tu al t er m in at ion d at e. Kue m m e r l e i n v . B d. o f Educ
. of th e M adison M et ro. Sch. D is t. , 894 F.2d 257, 259 (7th C ir. 19 90 ); C ha rd o n v . Ferna nd ez , 454 U .S. 6, 8 (19 81 ); D el
. State Coll
. v. Ri cks , 4 49 U
. S. 25 0, 2 58 ( 19 80 ) ( “[ t] he pr o perf o cus i s upon the ti m e o fthe disc ri m inatory act s , n o t u p o n t he ti m e a t which the co nsequ ences o ft he ac t s b e c a me m o stpa inful”)

. I n thi s co ur t, the da te o fthe unl awful e mpl o y men tp r a c t i c e i s w he n a “ fi na l, u l t i mat e , [ a nd ] non- tenta ti ve” deci si on w as m ade f orwh i ch the em plo yee re c eiv es u n eq u ivo c a l n ot ice
. Fla nn ery v . Rec o rdin g In du s. A s s ’ n o f A m. , 354 F.3d 63 2, 63 7 (7 th C i r. 20 04 ); Sm i t h v
. P o tter, 44 5 F
. 3d 1000 , 10 07 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. B u t, i n proc e- 6 du ra l due proc ess c as es , the cl ai m f ora depri vati on o f pu bl i c em plo ym ent a ccr ues o n the actualte rm i nati onN os. 10

- 2837& 10

- 3054 7

Tw o o f t h e s e t h r e e e mpl o y e e s we r e a c tu a l l y t e r mi n a t ed but 7 w e r e l a t e r r e h i r e d i n t o d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s . B e c a u s e t h e s e t wo em ployees w ere ter m inat ed in acc ordan ce w ith thei r t erm inat i on notices, the Pl ai nt i f f s ’ unc er t ai nt y a rg um en ti s s i gni fi c a nt l y we a ke ne d. d at e. Laws hev. S i mp s on , 1 6 F. 3d 1475, 1480 (7th C ir. 1994). N or m ally , we w oul d app l y the La w she st an dar d t o the Dr ape r Pl ai nt i ff s’ pr o ce dur aldue pr o ce ss c l ai m , b utthe D rap er P la intiff s d id n ot m ake th is argum en t before e i the r the di s t r i c t c o ur t o r thi s c o ur t
. As we ha ve of ten sa i d, “ it is n o t th i s co ur t’ s r es po ns ibi l i tyt o r es ea r cha nd const ruct the par ties ’ ar gum ents. ” A P S S po rts C o llectibles, Inc. v. Sports Tim e, Inc. , 29 9 F.3 d 6 24, 63 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( quotati on a nd punc tu ati on m ar ks om i tte d). Because the Pl a i nt i ff s do no t s ug g e st that Laws hea p p l i e s , we c o ns i de r tha ta r g ume ntwa i v e d. O n a p p e a l, th e P l a i n t i ff s p r i n c i p a l l y a r g u e tha t th e statute o fl i m i ta ti o ns pe r i o d di d no t be g i n r unni ng w hen the Pl ai nti ff s r ecei ved thei r te rm i nati on not i ces b ecause o fthe uncert ai nty s urr ounding the r eor gani zati on. I n other w ord s, a “fi nal, ul ti m ate , [ and] no n-t entativ e ” d ecision abou t w hich I D O T em p loyees to term i na te was ne ve r m ad e. To b o l st erthe i r c l ai m , the Pl ai nti ff s hi ghl i ght three em plo yee s wh o re cei ved te rm i na- 7 tio n n ot ice bu t w er e u ltim at ely ret ain ed an d tw o a d d iti onalem plo ye es wh o re cei ved not i ce b ut were cal l ed ba ckt o wor k

. W i th o uta fi na l t er m i na ti o n de ci si on, the n ot ice ea c h em p loy ee rec eiv e d w as n ot u n eq u ivo c al. T h er efo re , th e Pla in tiffs ar gu e t h at th e d at e o f th e d isc rim i-8 N os. 10

- 2837& 10

- 3054 nator y a ct was ac tual l y the effecti ve date o fthei r ter m i nati on. W e di sag re e. The al l ege d u n c er tai nty in I DO T’s re or gani zati on pl an does not change the s tatute o fl i m i tat i ons accrual date, a nd the di s t r i c tc o ur t s r i g ht ful l y fo un d K uem m erlein to contr o l the o ut c o me o fthe s e c a s e s . T he r e , s e v e r a l s c ho ol tea cher s fi l ed sui t a gai nst the M adis on M etr opol i tan Scho olD ist ri ct ( “M M SD”) al l eging tha t the sc hooldi str i ctunl awful l y us ed r ac e as a f act o r i n i ts l ay o ffpl an . K uem m er le in , 8 94 F
. 2d at2 58
. I n pr ev i o us ye ar s, the di st r i ctha d e xe cuted s i m i l arl ay o ff s i n whi chthe pl ai ntiffs w er e t ar ge t e d fo r te rm in at ion bu t w er e u ltim at ely re cal l ed to w or k. I n f act, “[ i ] n the fi ve previ ou s year s, M M S D ha d r ec al l ed, wi th in a month a nd a ha l fo fthe be g i nni ngo fthe s ch o o l y ea r, a n ave r ag e o ffi fty
- o ne per ce nto fthe t ea ch er s who r ec ei ve d lay o ffno ti ce s, ” an d in one yea r, the d istri ct recalled all t w elve teach ers w h o h ad rec eiv ed n ot ice of th eir te r m i n at ion
. Id. at 258- 59. On those f acts , we h eld that ev en a 50% chance ofbeing r ehi re d w as not enough uncer tainty t o change the a ccr u al d at e fro m the date o fnot i ce t o the date of t er m in at ion
. Id. at26 0 n. 4 ( “C on c ei vabl y, a sham l ay of fno ti ce , wher e al l no ti fi ed empl o y ee s ar e ev en tu al l y r ec al l ed to wor k, mightnot s ta r t th e r unni ng of the sta tute of l i m i tat i ons. The f acts of thi s case d o n ot sugge st such a scenar i o. ”)
. Th ere i s e ven l ess uncer tai nty i n th i s c a s e a s th e P l a i n t i ff s o n l y c i t e d a ha nd ful o fe mplo ye es w ho were re cal l ed. A s s uch, thi s ca se does not a p p ro ac h th e s h am -lay off s c en ar io w e a c kn ow led ge d in K uem m er le in
.N os. 10

- 2837& 10

- 3054 9 The Pl ai nti ff s a l so ar gue that K uem m er le in would have co m e o utdi ff er en tl y ha d the “ fi na l, ul ti m at e, [ an d] no nte nt at i ve ” l an g uage w e us ed i n Fl ann e ry ex i st ed atthe tim e of K uem m er le in
. Thi s i s i ncor rect. To the co ntra ry, w e e xpli ci tl y i nter prete d t he S up re m e Cour t’ s Ric ks / Char don l i ne o fcas es as say i ng t h e s tatute o fl i m i tati ons accr ues when the defendants m ake a “ f i nal d ec isio n .” Id. a t 25 9 ( emphas i s added )
. The r e i s no mean i ng ful diff er ence between a “fi nal ” deci si on and a “fi nal, ul ti m ate , [ an d] no n- te nt at i ve ” dec i si o n. W e us ed th i s r ul e before an d a ft er K uem m er le in , a nd we us e i t ag ai n t o day : The sta tute ofl i m i tat i ons accr ual date begins atthe ti m e o f th e fi na l di sc r i m i na to r y de ci si o n. F i na l l y , we fi nd tha t th e Pl ai nt i ff s a r e al so wro ng to sugge st that thei r i nd i vi du alnot i ces w er e no t unequi voc al. E ac h n ot ice let t e r s t a te d th at “y ou r p os itio n . . . i s t ar ge te d for abol i shm ent, ” a nd “i t i s with re gr et that I inf o r m y o u tha ty o u wi l l b e l a i d o ff

. . . e ff e c t i v e c l ose o fb us i ne ss J une 3 0, 2 00 4. ” I n P o tter, w e fou nd a si m i l ar noti ce let te r sat i sfi ed thi s t est
. 44 5 F
. 3d at 1007( the l ett er provi ded , “You a re her eb y noti fi ed that you w i l l be rem oved from th e P ostal Service on N ovem ber 27, 1998”). There i s functi onally no diff er ence between the P otter
- st at ement, “ y ou w i l l b e r emov ed” a nd the I DOTstate m en t, “you w il l be laid off

. ” I n bot h ca ses, there i s li t t l e do ub ttha ta r e a s o nab l e p e r s o n i n the P l a i nt i ff s’ posi tio n coul d draw any othe r concl usi on fro m that l ett erthan t h e nam ed em plo yee was to be ter m i nated effe c tiv e Ju n e 3 0, 20 04
. Se ei d. There for e, the noti ce each pl ai nti ffr ecei ved unequivo cal l y i nd icate d that Pl ai nti ff s’ em plo ym ent was t o end on J une 30, 20 04.10 N os. 10

- 2837& 10

- 3054 III. C ON CLU SI ON W e h old th at th e P lai nt iffs’ claim s are barred by I ll inois’s t wo - y e ar sta t ut e o fl i mi t a t i o ns a nd A FFIRM the dist ri ct cour ts’ gr ant o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent f orthe Defe nd ants.

12- 30- 11