## 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 o. 11

- 3197 K EI T H D OOKE RAN, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. C OUN TYOF C OO K, I LLINO IS, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC ourt fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No . 11 C2802

—Jo an B. G ott schall, Judge .
A RGUED M AR CH 28, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AY 3, 2013

Befo re M A NI ON, S YKES, an d H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . S Y K ES, C i r cu i tJudg e . Dr. Keith Dooke ra n w as hi re d by J ohn H
. S tr oge r H ospi talo fCookCounty in 20 00 subj ect to bi enni alr eappoi ntm ent. In his 2004 appli cati o n f o rr e a pp o i nt men t, Do o k e r a n di s c l o s e d fo rthe fi r st ti m e that M er cy H ospi tal, hi s pre vi ous e m ployer, had r epr i m an ded hi m f or c r ea tinga ho st i l e wor ke nv i r o nm ent. Thi s di scl osur e t ri gge re d an i nvest i gat i on and peer r ev i ew by S tr o g er H o spi ta l ’ s m edi ca l st aff
. An admi n-2 N o. 11

- 3197 istrative com m ittee even tu all y revo k e d Do okeran ’s sta ffpri vi l ege s, and the Cook County Boar d fo rm ally den i ed hi s r ea ppo i nt m en t appl i ca ti o n. D oo ke ra nso u gh t ju d icia l rev iew by co m m on -law w rit of cer tio ra ri in C oo k C ou n ty C irc u it Co u rt . T h e circ u it cou rt ruled in his favor, bu t th e I ll inois A p p ell ate C o urt r ev er se d a nd r eins tated the de ni alo fr ea ppo i nt m en t, a nd th e Illino is Su p re m e C ou rtd en ied le a v e to ap p ea l. W h ile these pro ceedi ngs were o ngoin g in the I l l i noi s co urts , Dooke ra n fi led char ges o fem plo ym ent di scr i m i nati on w i th the I l l i noi s Depart m ent o fH um an Ri ghts ( “I DH R”) and the Equal Em plo ym ent Opportuni ty Com m i ssi on ( “EE OC ”) al l eging that hi s re appli cati on w as d eni ed base d on hi s r ace and nati onalo ri gi n an d al so i n re tal i at i o n f o r a n e a r l i e r c h a r g e h e h a d fi l e d wi th t he EE OC. Aft era l o ngde l ay, Do o k er anr ec ei ve d a r i g ht

- to
- su e l ett erfro m the E E O C and br ought thi s s uiti n federa l co ur t ag ains t Coo kCo unty a l l eg i ngdi sc rim inat i o n a nd re tal i ati on in vi ol ati on o f T itle V I Io fthe Civi lRi ghts A ct of19 64, 42 U
. S. C. §§ 2000 e et s eq . The County m ove d to di smi ss f o rl ac ko fj ur i sdi ct i o n un d er Rooke r - Fe l dm an an d also on t h e b a s is of res j ud icata. The district cou rt rej ecte d the j uri sdictio nalar gum ent b ut di sm i sse d Dooke ra n’s cl ai m s a s ba rr ed by re s j ud i cata . W e a ffi rm . Fi rs t, the Rooke r - Fe l dm an doctr i ne does not apply, so subj ect- m atter j uri sdic ti on i s s ecure . Secon d , the d istri ct cou rt c orrectly held that Do okeran ’s Tit l e VI Icl ai m s a re pre cl ud ed. There i s n o rea ldi spute that th e b asi c r equi re m ents ofI l l i noi s pre cl usi on doctr i ne ar e m et; the m ai n poi nt o fco nten tio n is w hetherN o. 11

- 3197 3 D oo ke ra nh ad a fu ll an d fair op p or t u n ity to litiga te h is fed er al c laim s in th e s ta te -c ou rtp ro c ee d in gs . W e h old th athe di d. In Bl o u n tv . S t r oud, 9 04 N .E .2d 1, 17 -18 (Ill
. 2009 ) , the I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t hel d th at the s tat e c irc u it c ou rt s h av e jur isd ict ion to h ea r fed er al c iv i lri ghts claim s e ven though the I l l i noi s Hu m an Ri ghts C o mmi s s i o n ( “ I HR C ” ) d o e s n o t . A l t h o u g h s o me d ec isio n s from th e I llin ois A p p ella te C ou rth a d h eld o th er wi se , Do o k er anwas no t pr ev en te d fr om b r i ng i ng hi s Ti tl e VI Ic l ai m s w ith hi s ce r ti o r ar ipe ti ti o n in the ci rcui t co urt to tes t whether thi s l i ne o fi nter m edi ate ap p ell ate au th ority w as correct . Th e su c c essfu l p lai nt iff i n B lount d id ex actly th at, and the sta te sup rem e cou rt he ld th atthe a ppel l at e dec i si o ns ha d m i sr ea d the sta tutory s chem e. A ccor dingly, Dook er an c ou l d have j o i ne d hi s Ti tl e VI Ic l ai m s wi ththe s ta te
- co ur t ce r ti o r ari proce edi ng. Because he di d not, cl ai m pre cl usi on a pp l i es.
I . B a c kg r o und Dr. Dook er an, a surg eon and surgi calo ncol ogi st, was h ire d by S tr oge r H ospi tali n 200 0 s ubj ect to bi enni al re ap p ointm ent. In hi s 2 004 appli cati on forr enewal ofhis empl o y men ta nd h o s pi t a lp r i v i l e g e s , h e di s c l o s e d for the fi rs t t i m e that he h ad b ee n re pri m anded byM er cy H os pit al, hi s previ ous em plo yer . H e cer ti fi ed on his ear l i erap pli cati ons that he had not been re pri m anded i n the l a s tf o ury e a r s , wh e n i n f a c th e h a d r e c e i v e d a f o r m alr epr i m an d f o rc r ea tinga ho st i l e wor ke nv i r o nm e n t a t M er c y. Se eD ooke ran v. County of Cook, 92 0 N
. E.2 d 633, 63 7 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 20 09)
. M or e par ti cul ar l y,4 N o. 11

- 3197 Dooke ra n w as re m ove d as di re cto r ofsur gi calr ese ar ch and asso ci ate di re cto r ofthe gener alsur gery r es id en cy prog ra m as a conse quence of“ u n profess i onalco nd uct toward M er cy H ospi talem plo yee s. ” Id. Dr. H oward Zaren, the depar tm ent c hai r at St ro ger H o spital, s ubmi tt ed th e m at te rt o the ho spi ta l ’ s cr ede nti al s co m m i tte e, wh i ch i ni ti ate d an el abor ate i nter nalr ev i e w pr oc e s s t o de t e r mi ne Do o k e r a n’ s fi tne s s f o rr e a ppo i nt m en t. The c r ede nt i al s co m m i tt ee i nv es ti g ated and re com m ended to the exec uti ve m edi calst affthat Dooke ra n be denie d rea pp ointm ent. T he exec uti ve m edi ca ls ta ffdi d n ot i ss ue a n i m m edi at e r ul i nga nd r e fe r r e d th e i s s u e t o th e p e e r - r e v i e w c o mmi t t e e . T h a tc o mm ittee recom m en d ed a 29-da y sus p en sio n of Dook eran ’s cl i ni calpri vi l ege s

— a s u sp en sio n of 30 or m or e d ay s w ou ld have re q uir ed the hospi talto r epor t the di sci pline to a nati onaldataba nk. The exec uti ve m ed ica lst affadopted the peer- re vi ew com m i tte e’ s sugge sti on, bu t incr eas ed th e su spe ns ion to 3 0 day s. Be ca us e th e 30

- days us pen si on t ri gge re d the r epor ti ng r equi re m ent, Dook er an was ent i tl ed to a he ar i nga nd a ppea lunde rS tr o g erHos pi tal’s m edi calst affby l aw s. The fi ve- m em berhear i ng co m m i tte e dete rm i ned that Dooke ra n had f alsi fi ed hi s 2 002 re appoint m ent a pp l i cati on. O n the b as i s o fthi s an d o th erfi ndi ng s, the he ar i ng com m ittee recom m en d ed that Do okeran ’s sta ffm em bershi p be s uspend ed orr evo ked. The exec uti ve m edi cal st affc o nt i nue d t o r ec o m m en d a 3 0- days us pen sion, but the j oint- confer ence com m i tte e vot ed to re vok e Dooke ra n’s st affm em ber shi p i nstea d. That r eco m m enda-N o. 11

- 3197 5 t i o n wa s s e ntf o rfi na la c t i o n t o the Co o kCo un ty Bo a r d, whi c h f o r mal l y de ni e d D o o k e r a n’ s a pp l i c a t i o n f o rr e a ppoi ntm ent o n J une 20, 20 06. Dook er an ther eafterfi l ed a pet i ti on forco m m on- l aw cer t i o r a r ii n Co o kCo un ty Ci r c ui tCo ur ts e e k i ngr e vi ew ofthe Bo ar d’s deci si on. In I l l i noi s j ud i ci alr evi ew o f m o s ta d mi n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n s p r o c e e d s u n d e rth e Ad mi ni str ati ve Revi ew Law , 73 5 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/3- 101, b ut th e c om m on -law w ritof ce rt iora ri re m ain s a va ilab le an d s er ve s th e sa m e func ti o n f or j udi ci alr ev i ew o fthe age ncy deci si ons that f al lo utsi de the sta tute. See C hi. Title L a n d Trust C o . v. B d. o f Trs. , 87 8 N
. E.2 d 723, 72 7 (I ll. App. Ct
. 2 00 7)
. W hi l e th e ce r ti o r ar ipe ti ti o n was pe ndi ng i nth e ci r c ui tc o u r t, D o o k e r a n fi l e d a c h a r g e o fd i s c r i mi nati on with the I DH R and the E E O C a l l eging tha t hi s a pp l i cati on forr eappoi ntm ent wa s denie d because of his race (black) and nation al or igi n (Trinid ad ian). D oo k e ra nals o a lleg ed th atth e h os p ita l d isc h ar ge d h im i n re tal i ati on foran EEO C c h arge he fi l ed on J une 27, 2 0 0 5
. A t n o t i me d i d D o o k e r a n r a i s e a c l a i m o fd i s c r i mi nati on in the ci rcui t co urt. T h e c i r c ui t c o u r tc o n c l u d e d th a tth e h e a r i n gc o mmi t t e e ’ s r e c o mm e nd a t i o n wa s n o ts uffi ci en t l y s up p orted by the reco r d , v aca ted the d en ialof D ookeran ’s r ea ppo i nt m en t, a nd r emande d f o rthe ho sp ital ’ s he ar i ng com m i ttee to re consi der a nd “t o re com m end a l ess er sancti on. ” D ooke ran , 920 N
. E.2 d at 6 43. A fteraddit i onal proce edin gs, the ci rcui t co urt m odi fi ed the j ud gm ent, or d er in g th e B oa rd to su sp en d D oo ke ra n ’s c lin ica l p riv il e g e s f o r3 0 days. T he I l l i no i s App e l l a t e Co ur tr e v e r s e d,6 N o. 11

- 3197

I n 2 00 7 Dooke ra n s ued Co ok Co unty i n s t at e c our tf or 1 bre ac h o fc ont ra c t, r et al i at or y di s c har ge , an d def am at i on. H i s c l ai m s wer e di s m i s s ed o n r esj udi c at a g ro u nds , an d he a ppe a l e d. Th e I l l i no i s App e l l a t e Co ur tr e c e nt l y a ffi r m e d, hol di ng thatr es j udi c at a ba rr ed the c l ai m s f or br ea c h o f c on t r a c t, a n d r e t a l i a t o r y d i s c h a r g e a n d t r u th p r o v i d e d a co m p l e t e d efe n se to th e d efa m a tio n cla im
. SeeDooke ra n v. C ounty of

C ook, N o. 1-11-10 95 , 2 0 1 3 W L 119 02 85 ( Ill. A p p . C t. (1 st) M a r. 2 2 , 20 1 3 ). h old in g th atth e a d m in ist ra ti v e d ec isio n w as ad eq u at ely supp or ted bythe evi dence and re i nstat i ng the de n ial of re ap p oin tm en t. Id. a t 6 50. Th e I ll inois Sup rem e C ou rt d en ied lea ve to ap p ea l. D ooke ran v. County of Cook, 93 0 N
. E
. 2d 408, 408 (I ll
. 2010). 1 I n J anua r y 2 011, aft erthe c er ti o r ar ipr o ce edingi n the st at e co ur ts c o nc l ude d, the EEOC i ss ue d a ri g ht

- to
- su e l ett er . Dook er an then fi l ed this sui t a gainst Coo k County al l eg i ngc l ai m s unde rTi tl e VI I fordi sc r i m i na ti o n a nd r et ali ation o n the b as i s o fr ac e an d na ti o na lo r i g i n. The County m ove d to dism i ss on tw o gr ounds: ( 1) la c k of j urisd iction un d er Rooke r - Fe l dm an ; and ( 2) r es j ud i cata. The dis tr i ct c ourt hel d that the Rooke r - Fe l dm an do ct r i ne did notdepri ve the c ourto fsubj ec t-m att erj uri sdic ti on but di sm i sse d t h e su it o n the basi s o fr es j ud i cata . Do o k e r a n t i mel y a pp e a l e d.

I I . Discussi on T he prim ary issue on ap p eal i s w he th er Do okeran ’s fede r alc l ai m s unde rTi tl e VI Ia r e pr ec l ude d b ecause heN o. 11

- 3197 7

In theirbrie f s the parti es use the ter m res ju d ic ata, w hich 2 can refer either to claim p reclu sion or issue p r eclu sion
. C laim p reclu sion is i m p l icated her e; to av oid con fusion , w e u se th e mo r e p r e c i s e t e r m. SeeR ookerv. Fi d. TrustC o. , 2 6 3 U .S
. 4 1 3 (19 2 3 ); D .C
. C ou rt 3 of A ppea l s v. Fel dm an , 4 6 0 U .S. 4 6 2 (19 8 3 ). co ul d ha ve r ai se d the m i n hi s st at e- co ur t ac ti o n. But 2 the thres hol d questi on i s j uri sdic ti onal
. The R o o k erFe l dm an doctr i ne hold s that the l ower federa lco urts 3 l ack subj ect- m att erj uri sdic ti on o ve r acti ons that see k r e v i e w o fs t a t e - c o ur tj ud g men t s ; o nly the Uni t e d S t a t es Suprem e Cour t has autho ri ty to r evi ew st ate j ud gm ents. See Sk inn er v. Sw itz er, 13 1 S . C t. 12 89 , 1 29 7 (2 01 1); C raw fo rd v. C ountrywide Hom e Loa ns, Inc. , 647 F. 3d 642, 64 5 (7t hC ir. 20 11 ). Rooke r - Fe l dm an i s a “nar ro w doctr i ne,
‘ co nfi ne d t o ca se s br o ught bys ta te
- co ur t l o se r s co m pl aini ng of i nj uri es caused by sta te- cour t j ud gm ents re nd er ed be f o r e th e di st r i ctc o ur t procee di ng s co m m en ce d a nd i nvi ti ng di str i ct c ourtr evi ew and rej ecti on o ftho se j ud gm ents. ’ ” Kelley v . M ed-1 So l u t i o ns, LL C, 548 F. 3d 600, 60 3, ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( quoti ng Lance v. D ennis , 546 U
. S. 45 9, 46 4 ( 2006 ) )
. S tat ed differ ently, R ooke r - Fe l dm an i s o nl y c o ncern ed w it h “situ ations in w hich the sta te cou rt’s d ec i s i on is th e s ou rc e o f th e h ar m th atth e fe d er al s u it i s desi gned to r edres s. ” Sim m ons v. Gillespie, N o. 12

- 3381 , 2013 W L 11108 72, at * 2 (7th C ir. M ar. 19, 2013). The R ooke r - Fe l dm an doctr i ne does notapplyher e. Do o k e r a n’ s T i t l e V I Idi s c r i mi na t i o n a nd r e t a l i a t i on cl ai m s do not see k r edres s forh ar m caused by the st ate
-8 N o. 11

- 3197
co ur t j udg m en t. I t i s true tha t th e cl ai m s i nv o l ve the sam e basi c tr ansact i on that w as at i ssue i n th e s tatec ou rtac tio n ; th e c er tio ra ri p ro c ee d in g a n d th e c laim s in thi s ca se ar i se fro m the denia l o f D ooker an’ s a pp l i cati on for reap p ointm en t to th e Stroger H osp ital m ed ica l s taff. A s we w i l lexpl ai n, thattr ansact i onali denti ty has d isp os itiv e s ign ifica n c e for p re c lu sio n an aly sis , bu t it does not bring the Rooke r - Feld m an doctr i ne i nto pla y. D ookeran ’s Title V I Iclai m s d o not invite fede ral- cou rt re vie w an d rej ec tio n of th e j u d gm en t of th e Il l in ois cour ts i n th e cer ti or ar ipro ceedi ng. S ubj ect- m att erj uri sdict i on i s intact. That b rings us to the m ai n eve nt in thi s a pp eal, wh i ch i s cla i m pr ec l us i o n. The di st r i ctc o ur t di smi ss ed th e com pla i nt under Rul e 1 2(b)(6) o fthe Feder alRule s o f C i v i l Pr oc ed u re , so ou r re vie w is d e n ov o. S a n t a n a v. C o o kC nty . B d. o

f R eview , 679 F.3d 614 , 6 2 0 (7th C ir. 2012). The precl usi on r ule s o fI l l i noi s a pp l y. K re me rv . C h e m. Cons t r . C orp. , 45 6 U.S
. 46 1, 48 1- 82 ( 1982 ) ( the j ud i ci al acts , reco r d s, an d proc eed ings of every state cou rt are given th e sam e fullf aith an d cred it in ev ery cou rt w i thi n the U ni ted S tat es as they have i n thei r own st ate c ou rt s, see 28 U
. S. C. § 1 738; as such, federa lco urts apply the precl usi on doctr i ne of the sta te i n w h i ch th e prior j ud gm en t w as en tered ). I l l i noi s cl ai m -p re cl usi on l aw has thre e ba si c r equi re m ents: ( 1) a fi nalj ud gm ent o n the m er i ts ren d er ed by a co urt ofco m p et en t j uri sdic ti on; ( 2) an i denti ty of the c auses o f a c tio n; and ( 3) an i denti ty ofpart i es or th eir p riv ies
. Nowak v. St. R ita H igh Sc h. , 75 7 N
. E.2 d 471,N o. 11

- 3197 9 477 ( Ill. 2 001)
. The fi rs t a nd thi rd el em ents ar e s tr ai ghtf or w ar d and are sat i sfi ed her e; Dook er an does not ar gue o th er wi se . As fo rthe s ec o nd e lement

— w hether ther e i s a n i denti ty ofthe causes o fact i on

— I l l i noi s has adopted the “ tr ansact i onal ” a nal ysi s, wh i ch l ooks to see i fthe cl ai m s “ ‘ ar i se fro m a si ngl e g ro up o fo perat i ve f acts , r ega rd les s o fwh ethertheyas ser t di ffer ent theor i es ofr el i ef
. ’ ” A rlin-G o lf, L L C v . Villa ge o f A rling to n H eigh ts, 6 3 1 F
. 3 d 8 1 8 , 8 2 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 1 ) ( qu o ti ng R iverPa rk, Inc. v. C i ty o

f H igh la nd P a rk, 703 N
. E
. 2d 833, 893 (1998 ))
. “[ T]he tr ansact i onalte st pe rm i ts cl ai m s t o be c onsi dered part ofthe sam e ca use of a c tion eve n i fther e i s no t a substa nti alo ver l ap ofev i dence, so l ong as they ar i se fro m the sam e t ra nsacti on. ” Id. ( quo ta tio n m ar ks om i tte d)
. Aga i n, Do o k er ando es not co nt es t th i s par t o fthe a n a l y s i s . H i s T i t l e V I Ic l a i ms a r i s e fr o m th e s a me basi c tr ansact ion a s the st ate
- cour t ce rt i or ar ipro ceedi ngs: the d eni alo fhi s a pp l i cati on forr eappoi ntm en t a t St ro ge r H os p ita l. The l aw o fc l ai m pr ec l us i o n in I l l i noi s i nc l ude s th e co nc epto fmer g era nd b ar, whi ch“ pr ec l ude s th e se que nti alpursui t no t o nl y o fcl ai m s a ctual l y l i ti gat ed, but of thos e that cou l d have be en l i ti gat ed. ” Garc i a v. Vi l l ageof M t. Prospec t, 3 6 0 F
. 3 d 6 3 0 , 6 3 9 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( a ppl y i ng Il lin ois law ); se e also D urgins v. City of E
. St. Louis , 2 72 F.3 d 84 1, 84 3 (7 th C ir. 20 01 ) (sa m e); C ity of Peoria v. Peoria C ity Line s, Inc. , 182 N .E .2d 16 4, 16 7 (Il l
. 1 9 6 2) (c laim prec lu sio n bar s a l lquesti on deci ded i n the pri orl i ti gatio nas w ell as “a ll qu es tio n s w h i c h m igh t p ro p er ly have been l i ti gated and deter m i ned”). Thi s princi ple , ho wev er, i s bo unde d b y the Due Pr o ce ss Cl au se o fthe10 N o. 11

- 3197 Four tee nth A m endm ent, wh ich over ri des the othe rwis e p r e c l u siv e e ffec t o f a p rior j u d gm en t if th e c laim an t d id not have a “fulland f ai r opportunity t o l i ti gat e [ hi s] c laim ” in th e p rior ac tio n . Kre m er, 45 6 U. S
. a t 48 0 ( i ntern al quo tation m arks om itted ). W e hav e p re vi ousl y hel d that afedera lci vi l

- ri ghts c laim m ay be j oin ed w ith an ac tio n in Illi n o i s circ u it cour t s eek i ng j ud i ci alr evi ew o fa deci si on by an adm i ni str at i ve a g en cy, w hi chpro vi des the “ful land f ai ro ppo r tu
ni ty t o l i t i g a t e ” n e c e s s a r y f o rcl a i m pr e c l us i o n t o a pp ly. G arci a , 360 F.3d at63 9-4 2; s e e al s o Pire l a v. Vil l age o f No rth A uro ra, 935 F.2d 909, 913-15 (7th C ir. 1991). D ookeran asks us t o re con side r Garc i a. H e a rgues that bef or e 2 00 9, w hen the sta te suprem e co urt deci ded Blou nt, fe d e r a le mp l o y me n t
- d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i ms coul d not be br ought i n I l l i noi s ci rcui t co urts . T his argu m en t requ ires a c lose an alysis of Blou nt, an im p or ta n t d ec isio nby th e Illino is Su p re m e C ou r t. Blou nt i nvol ved a sui t a l l eging var i ous c auses o fact i on for em plo ym ent di scr i m i nati on, i ncl ud i ng a cl ai m o fr eta l i ati on und er 42 U
. S. C. § 1981 and a c om m on- l aw r eta l i ato ry di sc ha r g e cl ai m . 9 04 N. E. 2d at4
. The p lai nt i ffwona l a r g e j ud g men ti n the c i r c ui tco ur t, b utthe I l l i no i s App ella te C ou rtth re w it ou t o nj u ris d ict ion al g ro u n d s. Id. at 5. The appel l ate co urt hel d that the pl ai nti ff’ s s ole an d e xc l us i v e r e dr e s s wa s the a dmi ni s t r a t i v e r e med y p rovide d by the I ll inois H u m a n R ights A ct (“I H R A ”), 775 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/101 ( 2008 ), an d th erefore th e circui t co ur t l ac k ed su bj ec t- m atterj ur i sdi ct i o n o ve rthe § 19 81 a nd s ta te c o m m o n- l aw c l ai m s, 90 4 N
. E. 2d at6
. TheN o. 11

- 3197 11
c ou rtrelie d on th e jur is d i c t i on al b ar co n ta in ed in s e c t ion 8-111(D ) of I H R A , w hich states: “E xc ep t as oth erw i se provi ded byl aw , no cour t o fthi s s tat e s hal lhave j uri sdic ti on o verthe subj ect of an al l ege d ci vi lr i ghts v i o l a t i o n o the r tha n a s s e t f o r th i n thi s Act
. ” 7 75 I LL . C OM P . S T AT . 5/8-111(D ). The I l l i noi s Sup re m e Cour t r eve rs ed. 904 N .E. 2d at 18. The c o ur t se par at ely a ddr es se d whethe rthe j ur i sdi ct i o nstripp ing p rovisi on in th e I H R A barred the p lai nt iff’ s tor t cl ai m f or r et al i ato rydi schar ge and her cl ai m under § 1 9 8 1. R egard ing the com m on-law clai m , the cou rt e xp l a i ne d tha tthe I HRA “ pr o v i de s a n e xc l us i v e r e med y f orst ate ‘civ ilr i ghts vi ol ati ons, ’ as defi ned i n the A ct, but m ak es no m enti on o fco m m on l aw to rtact i ons. ” Id. at 10. Invoking the princi ple that“ ‘l egi sl ati ve i ntent to ab ro ga te th e c om m on law m u s t b e c lea rly an d p lain ly express ed, ’ ” id. ( quoti ng M aksim ovic v. Tsoga lis , 68 7 N
. E. 2d 21 , 2 4 ( I l l
. 1 99 7) ) , the c o ur t he l d th at th e I H RA do es no t cl ea r l y e xpr es s ani nt en t to abo l i shc o m m o nl aw t o r ts f a c tu a l l y c o n n e c t e d t o r e t a l i a ti o n, a nd ther ef or e the “pl ain tiff’ s cl ai m f orr eta l i ato rydi schar ge w as proper l y b ef or e the ci rcui t co urt, ” i d. The co urt r ea ch ed a si m i l arc o nc l us i o n r eg ar di ngthe § 19 81 c l ai m . The c o urt ex pl aine d tha t as us ed i n the I H RA, the term “ ci vi lr i g ht s vi o l at i o n” ha s a spe ci fi c an d lim ite d m ea n in g. Id. a t 1 6 ( c i t i ng77 5 I LL . C OMP S T AT . 5/ 1- 103( D) ( l i sting the st ate s ta tutory pr ovi si ons to w hi ch the ter m “ci vi lri ghts vi ol ati on” app l i es) )
. “[T] he adm i ni strative p roced ure s con tained i n t h e A ct, w hich govern the fi l i ng and d isp os iti on o fal l ege d ‘c i vi lr i ghts vi ol a-12 N o. 11

- 3197 ti o ns , ’ a r e appl i cabl e o nl y t o c i vi lr i g ht s vi o l at i o ns und er the A ct. ” Id. Ci vi l

- r i g ht s vi o l at i o ns a r i sing und erfedera ll aw a re n ot i ncl ud ed i n the sta tutory l i st, so the c ourthel d that the I H RA ’ s a dm i ni st ra ti ve procedures

— i ncl ud in g th e st atuto rypro vi si ons est abli sh ing the exc lusive ad m inistrative rem ed y and the corre sp ondingj uri sdic ti onalbar

— do not apply to federa l c ivil-rig h ts cla im s. Id. a t 17. In o th erwor ds, b ec au se the IH R A ’s jur isd ict ion al lim it a p p lies on ly to th e c ivilrig hts v i ol ati ons l i ste d i n the sta tutory defi ni ti on

— i.e., thos e a ri si ng under s tat e l aw

— the I H RA ’ s j uri sdic ti onal bar“does notapplyto ci vi lr i ghts vi ol at ion s d efi ned by an d ari sing u nd er federal l aw , as thos e viol ations are outsi de the sco pe ofthe A ct. ” Id. Fin ally , th e c ou rtex p lain ed th atbe c au se th e “ [c ] i r c u it c o ur t s a r e c o ur t s o fg e ne r a lj ur i s di c t i o n, ” i d. ( ci ting Stein b r e c h er v. Steinbrec her, 759 N .E .2d 50 9, 51 5 n .3 (Ill. 2001 ) ) , theyar e “ presum pti vel y c om petent to adj ud i cate cl ai m s a ri sing und erthe l aw s o fthe U ni ted S tat es, ” i d. ( ci ti ng Yel low F reight Sys. , Inc. v. D onnelly, 49 4 U.S
. 82 0, 823 ( 19 90 ) )
. Acco r di ng l y, the c o ur t he l d tha t th e pl ai nt if f “co uld pro perl y purs ue herr i ghts and rem edi es und er federa ll aw i n the ci rcui t co urt. ” Id. at18
. A fter Blou nt i t i s cl ear that a federa lciv i l

- ri ghts cl ai m m ay b e b ro ught in I l l i noi s ci rcui t co urt al ong w i th a related ad m inistrative-review action, and a party ’s f ai l ure to do so wil lther ef or e r ai se the potenti alf or cl ai m precl usi on. Dooke ra n ar gues that b efore Blou nt the l aw w as m urky and in f act prohibi ted him from b rin gin g h is T itle V II c laim s in th e c irc u it c ou rt . Th isN o. 11

- 3197 13
ov er st at es th e m at te r. T h e s t at e s u p re m e c ou rtac kn ow ledged in Blou nttha t so m e appe l l at e- co ur t dec i si o ns had m i sr ead the I H RA as bar ring the ci rc uitco urts fro m h ea rin g fe d er al c ivil-rig h ts cl a im s, an d p ar tic u lar ly T i t l e V II c laim s. Id. at12

- 15 ( ci ti ng Ca h o o n v . A l t o n Pa ckagi ng Co rp., 4 9 9 N .E .2d 52 2 (Ill. A p p . C t. 19 86 ); Fa ulk nerKin g v . Wi cks , 590 N .E .2d 51 1 (Ill. A p p . C t. 19 92 ); Coope rv. Il l
. Stat eU ni v. , 772 N .E .2d 39 6 ( Il l
. A p p . C t. 20 02 ); B rew er v. B d. of Trs. of U niv. of Ill
. , 79 1 N
. E.2 d 6 57 (Il l
. A pp . Ct. 20 03 ); M e e han v. Il l
. P owerCo. , 80 8 N
. E.2 d 555 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 2004 ) )
. The co urt hel d, how eve r, that thes e ca ses co ntra
d ict ed th e clea r lan gu ag e o f IH R A
. Id. at15 . Th e c ou rtd id not vi ew i ts hol ding, wh i ch ov er ru led the Cahoon l i ne o f case s, as working a change i n I l l i noi s la w ; to the co ntra ry, the c o ur ts a i d the s t a tut e wa s “ un a mbi g uo us ” a nd the a ppel l ate co urt’ s inter preta ti on o fI H RA ’ s j uri sdic ti onal p ro vis ion w as p lain ly m ist ak en . Id. (re fu sin g t o a p p ly the doct rine o fl egi sl ati ve acqu i esce nce t o the Cahoon i nter preta ti on o fthe I H RA ’s j uri sdic ti on- str i pp i ng pro vision). The ups hot of Blou nti s th atno twi th st an di ngthe c on trar y v i ew expre sse d i n sev er alI l l i noi s a pp el l ate
cour t deci si ons, the ci rcui t co urts i n I l l i noi s hav e j uri sd i c t i o nt o h e a rfe d e r a lc i v i l

- r i g h t s c l a i ms

— and thi s w as so both before and after Blou nt . W e ac kn ow led ge d in G arci a , deci ded befor e B lo un t, that the I l l i noi s ap p ellat e c o ur t s we r e i n c o nfl i c t o n the qu e s t i o n o f whe the rf e der alc i vi l

- rights cl ai m s co ul d b e “j o i ne d a s i nde pen den t cau ses ofact i on with adm i ni str ati ve appeal s hea rd by I l l i no i s c i r c ui tc o ur t s p r i o rt o the e xh a us t i o n o fI l l i no i s’ ad m in ist ra tiv e p ro c es s fo r th e c ivil-rig h ts cla im s.”14 N o. 11

- 3197

A s epa rate ho l di ng i n Bl o unt, no t im p licated her e, m ay cast 4 som e d ou b t on on e a sp e c t of ou r casela w . T he Illinois Supr em e Cour the l d thatfede ra l c i vi l

- ri ght s c l ai m s c ann ot be bro ughti n the adm i ni s t ra t i ve f or u m p ro v i ded i n the IH RA , whi c h a ppl i es on l y t o s t at e c i vi l

- ri ght s vi ol at i on s. Bl o unt v. St r o ud, 90 4 N
. E. 2d 1 , 15

- 17( I l l
. 20 09 )
. Thi s ho l di ng calls into qu estion a ge ne ral su g g estion , m ad e or im p lied in our dec i s i ons i n A bnerv. Il l i n ois D epa rt m entof Trans por t at i on , (co n tin u ed ...) 360 F. 3d at 639. W e s peci ficall y no ted thatthe Cahoon l i ne o fcas es w as contr adic ted byo therI l l i noi s a pp el l ate
c o u r td e c i s i o n s , s o me o fw h i c h a l l o we d § 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms to be j oined as ind ependent acti on s in the c i rcui t co urt. Id. a t6 4 1 ( ci ti ng S tyk el v. C ityof Freep o rt, 742 N
. E.2 d 906, 91 4 (Ill. A p p . C t. 2 0 0 1 ) ; Stratton v. Wenona C m ty. U nit D ist. No . 1, 55 1 N
. E. 2d 640 ( I l l
. 1 99 0) )
. The t ex t o fI H RA and the pre sum pti on o f co ncurr ent j uri sdic ti on ca st furtherdoubt o n the Cahoon l ine of case s even before they w er e e xpli ci tl y o ver rul ed by Blou nt
. Thu s, pri orto Blou ntputati ve Tit l e VI Ipl ain tiffs l i ke D o o k e r a nw e r e n o tb a r r e d f r o m p r e s e n t i n gth e i rc l a i ms t o th e I l l i n o i s c i r c u i t c o u r t s . T h e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me Cou r t’ s an al y si s i n B lount d oe s n otu n d er m in e o u r d ec isi o n in G a rcia; to the c o nt r ary, o urho l ding tha t th e Illino is c irc u it c ou rt s h av e jur isd ict ion ov er fed er al c ivilr i g ht s c l a i ms c o r r e c t l y a nt i c i pa t e d Blou nt
. A ccor dingly, Doo k er an ha d a ful l an d f ai r o ppo r tu ni ty to p urs ue hi s Ti tl e VI Ic l ai m s wi thhi s ce r ti o r ar ia ction i n the c i r c u it c ou rt . T o th e e x te n t th e c irc u it c ou rtw ou ld 4N o. 11

- 3197 15

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 6 7 4 F .3d 71 6 , 72 1 (7t h C ir . 20 1 2 ); Haye s v. C i ty of C hi cago , 670 F. 3 d 8 1 0 , 8 1 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 2 ) ; a nd Wel ch v. Johnso n , 907 F
. 2d 714, 7 2 3

- 2 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 0 ) , tha ta fe de r a l c i vi l

- r i gh t s c l a i m m a y be raised a s a d efense in Illinois ad m inistra tiv e p ro ceed ing s. No th i n g i n B lou n t under m i ne s the j udgm en t s i n A bn er, Hayes , a nd Wel ch , ho w ev er. A s w e h a v e exp lain ed , the Illinois circu it cou rts ha v e jurisd iction to he ar fed era l civil-righ ts cl a im s ev en th o u g h th e I H R C d o es n o t, Bl o unt, 904 N
. E.2d at 15- 17 , and the y m ay do s o i n t ande m with j udi c i al

- re vi ew pr oceed i n g s br ou g ht p u rsu an t to statu te or co m m on -law w rit o f ce rt io ra ri , se e, e . g. , S trat t o n v . Wen on a C m ty . U n it D ist. N o. 1 , 5 5 1 N .E .2d 64 0 , 64 5 -4 7(Ill. 1 9 9 0 ). ha ve r efus ed to he arhi s claim s bas ed o n the e r r o ne o us case law from the Il linois ap p ell ate cou rts, D o okeran ’s r ec o ur se was the sam e as i n Blou nt

— ta k e ana ppea la nd as kthe I l l i no i s S upr eme Co ur t f or an a utho r i ta ti ve i nte r pr et at i o n o fthe I H R A ’ s j ur i sdi ct i o na lpr o vi si o n. B ec au se D o o k e ra nfailed to rais e h is T itle V II c laim s in h is e ar lier s ta te -c ou rtac tio n, th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ro p er ly di smi ss ed th em as b ar r ed byc l ai m pr ec l us i o n. A FFI RMED .16 N o. 11

- 3197 H A MI L T ON, Cir cu i tJudg e, d i s se n tin g. Ires p ec tfu lly diss ent. W hen pla i nti ff’ s case w as pend i ng i n the stat e cour ts, he di d n ot h av e a fulland f ai r opportunity t o litig at e h is fe d er al c laim s o f ra c e a n d n at ion al or igin disc ri m i nati on there
. I fhe ha d tri ed to as ser t these cl ai m s a l ong w i th hi s cert iora ripeti ti on in the sta te courts in 20 06, he woul d have run i nto tw o decades o f sol i d app el lat e prece dent hol ding that the s tat e t ri al cour ts si m plydi d not hav e j uri sdic ti on o vertho se federa lcla im s. I n the f ace oftho se prece dents, and w i th the federa lco urtho use doo rs then see m i ngly open to hi m , Dr. Dooker an to ok a r eas onabl e path. H e fol l owed e s t ab l i s h e d l a w b y w a i t i n gt o p u r s u e h i s fe d e r a lc l a i ms in federa l cour t. H e shoul d no t be penal i zed by a cl ai m pr ec l us i o n b arf o rha vingdo ne s o . ( Li k e th e m aj or i ty, Iwil lreferto cl ai m pre cl usi on r atherthan re s jud ica ta .) Forpurposes o fo ur re vi ew o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di sm iss alo fthi s a cti on, we m ust a ssum e o n the m er i ts that consi derat i ons ofr ace and nati onalo ri gi n d id in f act i n fl u e n c e t h e d e c i s i o n t o t e r mi n a t e D r . D o o k e r a n ’ s e mplo ym ent. In deci ding w hethercl ai m pre cl usi on now ba r s Dr
. D o o k e r a n ’ s fe d e r a lc l a i ms , th e p i v o t a li s su e is w h et h er h e h ad “a fu l l an d fair op p or tu n ity to litigat e” hi s cl ai m s o fr ace and nati onalo ri gi n dis cri m i nati on in the sta te tr i alco urt that hear d his co m m on l aw c erti or ar ichal l enge to hi s di sm i ssa l
. S ee gener ally Kre m e rv. Che m i ca l Cons t r uc t i on Corp
. , 45 6 U.S. 461, 48 0- 81 ( 1982 ) ( “[ T ]h e j ud i ci al l y c re ate d doctrine o fco l l ate ra l est oppel does notapplywh en the party a gainst w hom th e ea r l i erde ci si o n i s as se r te d did n ot ha ve a ‘ ful la ndN o. 11

- 3197 17 f ai ro ppo r tu ni ty ’ to li ti g at e th e cl ai m o ri ss ue . ”) , quo ting A llen v . M cC urry, 449 U .S. 90 , 95 (1 98 0), M ont ana v. U nited Sta tes , 4 4 0 U. S
. 1 4 7, 1 5 3 (1 979 ) , a nd Blon de r - Tongue Lab s . , Inc . v. U ni v. of Il l i nois Fo und
. , 4 02 U
. S. 31 3, 32 9 ( 1971 ) ; se e a l so G arci a v. Village of M ount P rospe ct, 36 0 F
. 3d 63 0, 63 4 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ) (fed e r a l co u rtca n d en y c laim p re c lu sio nif st at e c ou rt s d en ied p ar tie s a fu ll an d fair op p ortu nity to li tigate the m atter). M or e s peci fi cal l y, “cl ai m pre cl usi on g ener al l y doe s no t app l y wh e r e ‘ [ t ] h e p l a i n t i ff wa s u n ab l e t o r e l y o n a c e r t a i n the o r y o fthe cas e o rt o s e e ka c e r t a i n r e med y because o fthe l i m i tation s o n the subj ect m att erj uri sdic

ti on o fthe cour ts . . . . ” M ar re s ev. Am e r i ca n Ac ade m y of O r t hopae di c Sur

ge ons , 4 70 U. S
. 3 73 , 3 82 ( 19 85 ) , quo ting R estat em en t (Second ) of Jud gm en ts § 26(1)(c) ( 1982 ). Illino is c ou rt s ap p ly th is jur isd ict ion al lim it on cla im precl usi on. S ee R iver P a rk, Inc . v. C ityof H igh la nd P a rk, 70 3 N .E .2d 88 3, 89 6 (Ill. 19 98 ), citin g, e.g . , R estat em en t § 26(1); M ar re s ev. Am e r i ca n Ac a dam y of O r t hopae di c Surge ons , 6 2 8 F
. S u p p . 9 1 8 , 9 2 4 ( N. D
. I l l
. 1 9 8 6 ) ( a ft e r r e ma n d , a ppl y i ngj ur i sd ic ti o na ll i m i ta ti o n t o fi nd no c l ai m pr ec l usi on)
. That rule appli es dir ectly her e. W e m ust e val uate Dr. Dook er an’ s op portunity t o prese nt hi s federa ldi scr i m ination c lai m s in the sta te cour ts atthe t i me he mi g hth a v e t r i e d d o s o , i n 2 0 0 6. T h atreq u ire s a b rie f to u r th ro u gh n ow -d efu n c t Illino is case l aw . In 200 6, Dr. Dook eran w oul d have run i nto a s olid w all of a p p ella te p re c ed en t h old in g th atIl lin ois tr i alco urts had no j uri sdic ti on o verfedera lcl ai m s o f di s c r i mi na t i o n. Th o s e c a s e s i nt e r pr e t e d a pr o v i s i on o f18 N o. 11

- 3197

The languag e was earl ier in s ect ion 5/ 8- 111( C), as i nd ic ated 1 i n s om e quotati ons be l ow. Atthe t i m e, the Actpr ovi ded f or jud icial re v iew of fina l ag en cy actio ns b efore th e Illino is A p p ellate C ou rt. the I l l i noi s Hu m an Ri ghts A ct s tat in g: “Except as ot h er w ise p ro vid ed by law , no co u rtof th is s ta t e s h all h av e jur isd ic tio nov er th e s u bj ec t o f an alleg ed civ il ri ghts vi ol ati on o therthan as set f or th in thi s Act. ” 7 75 I ll
. Com p . Stat. 5/8-111(D ) (2008). 1 T h e s ta tu to ry te rm “c ivil rig h ts vio lat ion ” is d efin ed in the Act: “ ‘C ivilr i ghts vi ol ati on’ i ncl ud es and shal lbe l i m i te d t o o nl y tho se s pec ifi c ac ts s etf o r thi n S ec ti o ns 2- 102, 2- 103, 2- 105, 3- 102, 3- 102. 1, 3- 103, 3- 104, 3- 104. 1, 3- 105, 3-1 05. 1, 4-1 02, 4-1 03, 5-1 02, 5A

- 102, 6- 101, and 6- 102 ofthi s Act. ” 77 5 I l l
. Com p. S tat . 5/ 1- 103( D). The r efer enced se cti ons al ldealwith o ne fo rm or anothe r of d is c r i m i n at ion . For o u r p u rp os es , th e m os t re lev an t is sect i on 2
- 102, wh i ch pro hibi ts “un lawful di scr i m i natio n ” i n e m p loy m en t. “U n law fu l d isc rim in at ion ” is in turn defi ned to m ean d i scr i m i nati on o n the basi s o f “r ac e, c o l o r, r el i g i o n, na ti o na lo r i g i n, a nc es try, a g e, s ex , m ar i talst atus, ord er ofpro tect i on s tatus, di sabi l i ty, m i l i t a r y s t a tus , s e xu a lo r i e nt a t i o n, o ru nf a v o r ab l e di sc harg e fro m m i l i tar y s er vi ce a s those te rm s a re defi ned in this Section.” 775 Il l. Com p . Stat. 5/1-103(Q ). Th e s t a tut o r y l a ngua g e do e s no t di s t i ngui sh be

tw een those di scr i m i nati on cl ai m s that a ri se und er fe de r a ll a w a nd tho s e tha ta r i s e un der s t a t e l a w. Ac c o r di ngl y, the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Courtheld r ep eat edl y thatN o. 11

- 3197 19 t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a lb a rw a s n o tl i m i t e d t o s t a t e l a w c l a i ms but al so appli ed to federa l disc ri m i nati on cl aim s. Se e Cahoon v. Alt on Packaging C orp. , 499 N .E .2d 52 2, 52 3 (Ill. A pp . 19 86) ( “the pla i n l anguage of S ecti on 8
- 111( C) r equir es that an I l l i noi s co urt dism i ss [ a federa l ag e di scri m i nati on] cas e unl ess state adm i ni str ati ve re m edi es ha ve been exh au sted ”); Fa ul kne r - Kin g v . Wi cks , 59 0 N
. E.2 d 511, 51 6 ( I l l
. A pp . 19 92) ( I l l i noi s Hu m an R i ghts A ct pr eclud ed state cou rt ju r isd iction over Title VIIclai m s); Coope rv. Il l i nois Stat eU ni v. , 7 7 2 N. E. 2 d 3 9 6 , 4 0 1 ( I l l
. App
. 2002 ) ( dism i ssing pl ai nti ff’ s AD EA and Ti tl e VI Icl ai m s: “W e a dh er e t o Fau l kne r - Kin ga nd C ahoon , a nd thus hold thati n I l l i noi s, the A ct i s the excl usi ve sour ce o f a r em edy f orem plo ym ent- disc ri m i nati on cl ai m s. . . . ”) (c ita tio n s o m i t t e d ); Bre werv. Bd. of Tr us t e e s of

U ni v. of Il li nois , 7 91 N. E. 2d 65 7, 6 62 ( I l l
. App. 2 00 3) ( i n r ej ec ting pla inti ff’ s a rgum ent that I H RA § 8- 111( C) di d not precl ud e s tat e co urt j uri sdicti on o verTi tl e VI Iand § 1 983 cl ai m s: “we dis agre e with pla i nti ff’ s inter preta ti on ofse cti on 8
- 111(C ). N eithe r Tit l e VI Inorse cti on 1 983 p rovide s tha t plaintiff s m ay su e in state cou rt. ”); M e e han v. Il l i nois PowerCo. , 808 N .E .2d 55 5, 56 2 (Ill. A p p . 2004) (“[ F]ed era l claim s of age d iscrim ination are tr ea te d i den ti ca l ly to s ta te c l ai m s o fa g e di sc r i m i na ti o n. The ci rcuit c ourt s o fI l l i noi s hav e no j uri sdic ti on o ver c laim s o fag e di scr i m i nati on in em plo ym ent, wh ether bas ed on fede ral law or state l aw . ”). To be sur e, the Cahoon l i n e o fc a s e s wa s d e e p l y p r o b l e matic. I n term s of o ur fed eral system of govern m en t, it’ s a problem w hen st ate co urts o fge nera lj uri sdic ti on r e fu s e t o e x e r c i s e j ur i s d i c t i o n o v e ra c l a s s o fc l a i ms20 N o. 11

- 3197

ar isin g u n d er fed er al la w . E.g
. , Haywo odv . Dr own , 55 6 U
. S. 72 9 ( 2009 ) ( sta te coul d not ba r sta te tr ial cour t j uri sdi c t i o n o v e rcat eg o r y o ffe de r a lc l a i ms un de r4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 983)
. In m or e pr acti calte rm s, the lim i t o n sta te tr i al cour t j uri sdic ti on m eant that w hen pla i nti ff s a sse rt ed a va ri etyo fcl ai m s a ri si ng o ut o f a n a d verse em plo ym ent a cti on, bo th em plo yee s a nd em plo yer s co uld f ace a b e wi l de r i ng maz e o f j ur i s di c t i o na l pa ths and r o a dbl ock s depend in g on wh ethercl ai m s were federa lo r s t a t e , s t a tu t o r y, c o n s t i tu t i o n a l, o rc o mmo n l a w. Three yea rs afterDr. Dook er an m ade hi s cho i ce t o f ol l ow the Cahoon l i n e o fca se s a n d to w aitto p re se n t h is fed er al d isc rim in at ion cla im s in fed er al c ou rt, th e Illino is Suprem e Cour t r eso l ved so m e o ftho se probl em s by ov er rul i ng the Cahoon lin e o f ca se s. Blou ntv. St r oud, 90 4 N
. E. 2d 1 ( I l l
. 2009 )
. In Blou nt, the sta te’s highe st cou rt co nc l ude d tha t th e st atut o r y te rm “ci vi lr i g ht s vi o l at i o n” i s l i m i te d t o c i vi lr i g hts vi o l at i o ns a r i singunde rthe enum er ate d sect i ons o f t he st ate st atute and does not in c lu d e c laim s a ris in g u n d er fed er al la w . Id. at16
. Inco n c lu d in g t h atD r. D oo ke ra n h ad a fu ll an d fair op p or tu n ity t o b r i n g h is fe d er al ra c e a n d n at ion al or igin disc rim i nati on cl ai m s in sta te cour t be f or e B lount w as d ec id ed , th e m ajorit y re as on s t h atD r. D oo ke ra n co u ld have do ne wh a tMs. Bl o un tdi d: r a i s e h e rfe de r a ldi scr i m i na ti o n cl ai m s i n st at e co ur t an d ch al l en g e the tw o d ec ad es of co n tr ollin g p re c ed en t d ep riv in g Illino is s t a t e c o u r t s o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r s u c h c l a i ms . I n my v i e w, deem i ng tha t r oute a fulland f ai r opportunity t o litig at e D r . D oo ke ra n ’s c laim s in th e s ta te co u rt s is si m plynotr eal i sti c.N o. 11

- 3197 21 A t the r el evantti m e, the state courts appeare d to be cl o se d t o Dr
. Do o k er an ’ s fede r alc l ai m s, b utthe federa lco urts a p p ear ed to be open. Let’ s s up pose that backi n 200 6, Dr. Dook er an and hi s l aw yerhad studi ed th e qu est i on a nd r eached the co ncl usi on that the Ca hoon l i ne o fca ses had consi ste ntl y m i sr ead the sta tute. Dr
. Do o k er ana nd hi s l awy ers ti l lhad no c o m pel l i ng re aso n t o p i c ku p tha tp a r t i c ul a rl a nc e a nd a t t a c ktha t j uri sdic ti onalwindm i l lwh en the federa lco urts wo u ld h av e b ee nop en t o h is c laim s. A litiga n t w h o s im p ly w ants to have hi s cl aim s heard o n the m er i ts cannot be f aul ted, and cer tain l y s houl d not be penal i zed with c laim p re c lu sio n, bec au se h e re as on ab ly r e lied on w ellest abl i shed l aw and c hose not to spend the tim e, en er g y, a nd m o ne y t o fi g htthe c ho i ce - o f

- f o r um i ss ue allthe w ay to the I ll inois Sup rem e C ou rt. From the p erspective o fa pla i nti ffwh o m er el y wants t o be he ar d by a fair trib u n al

— an y fair t r ib u n al

— ther e was no need to try t o f or ce the l ocko n the I l l i noi s co urtho use door s when the federa lco urtho use doo rs s ee m ed to be o pen . To av oi d thi s r eas oni ng, the m aj ority a l so sugge sts that I l l i noi s ca se l aw befor e B lount w as actually s pli t o n whethe r“ al l eg ed ci vi lr ights v i o l at i o n[ s] ” unde rthe Act i nc l ude d fede r al di sc r i m i na ti o n cl ai m s. Gi ven the str ength and s p ec ifi ci ty ofthe hol dings i n the Cahoon l i ne o fc as es , Ido ubttha t ev ens o m e ar g uabl y c o nfl i ct i ng au th ori ty shoul d m ake a differ ence i n deci ding w hether Dr
. Do o k er anha d a ful la nd f ai ro pp ortu ni tyt o b r i ng hi s fe de r a ldi s c r i mi na t i o n c l a i ms i n the s t a t e c o ur t . On cl o se rex am i na ti o n, ho wev er, Is ubmi t th er e was no22 N o. 11

- 3197 genui ne co nfl i ct b etween the Cahoon l i ne o fcases a nd the c as es c ite d by th e m ajorit y, Stratton v. Wenona C om m unity U nit D ist. No . 1 , 5 5 1 N
. E
. 2 d 6 4 0 , 6 4 6 ( I l l
. 1 9 9 0 ) , a n d Sty k el v. C ityof Freep o rt, 742 N
. E
. 2d 906 (I ll
. A p p . 2001). R ecallthatthe Cahoon l i ne o fcas es re l i ed enti re l y o n th e s ta tu to ry d efin itio n of “c ivil rig h t s vio lat ion,” whi chwas l i m i te d i n r el ev an t p ar t to c l ai m s o funl awful disc r i m i nat i on . N either St rat t on nor Stykel i nvol ved a cl ai m for di sc r i m i na ti o n. In St rat t on , th e Illino is S up r e me Court he l d tha ta t r i a lc o ur tr e v i e wi nga n a dm in ist ra tiv e d ec isio n to ex p e l a s tu d en t fro m a p u b lic schoo lco uld t ake addit i onalev i dence and adj ud i cate a federa ldue proc ess cl ai m under 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983. I n Sty k el , the a pp e l l a t e c o ur th e l d tha tfi r e fi g ht er appli cants w ho had sco re d zer o on a qual i fyi ng exam i nati on co uld p u rs ue federa lco nsti tuti onalci vi lr i ghts claim s in state cou rt un d er secti on 19 83. Th e cou rt’s opin i on, however, di d not ind i cate any al l ega ti ons of u n law fu l di s cr i m i nat i on . W hen one ke ep s in m i nd the Cahoon l i ne’ s focus on disc ri m i nati on, the perce i ved co nfl i ct b etween thos e c a s e s a nd St rat t on a nd Stykel d isa p p ea rs . Th e Il l i n ois cour ts gener al ly ob ser ved thi s di stincti on, and J ud ge Kenne l l y e xplaine d i t wel li n Thom pson v. Solo , N o. 03

- cv8766 , 20 04 W L 25810 92, * 4 ( N
. D. Ill. A ug. 26 , 20 04) ( hol ding that pla i nti ff’ s fe d er alcl ai m thatwas not a cl ai m f o rdi sc r i m i na ti o n was b ar r ed byc l ai m pr ec l us i o n,N o. 11

- 3197 23

Our opi ni on i n Gar c i a v . Vi l l ag eo f M o un tPr o s pec t, 3 60 F. 3d 2 630, 639- 4 2 (7 th C ir
. 2004) , w as is sued befor e Bl o untand p erceiv e d t h e s a m e ten sion seen b y the m ajor ity to d ay , b u t G a rc ia al s o f ai l ed t o foc us o n th e di ffer en c e betweendi s c ri m i nat i on cl a im s a n d o th er ty p es o f cla im s. G ar ci a a v o i de d r e s o l v i ng t he iss u e b y m a k in g a fu rt h er m ist a k e, c o n cl u d in g th a t a p la in tiff w ith a fed era l d iscrim ina tion claim cou ld b ring his claim to the Il li no is H u m an R ights Com m is si on and the n se ek j ud ic ial re v ie w in th e I lli n o is c ir cu it c o u rt s. Id. a t 6 4 2 . A t that t im e, actio ns o f the IH R C cou ld b e rev iew ed on ly in the I l l ino is App e l l a t e Co ur t, a s the a ppe l l e e a dm i t s h e r e . S e e 7 7 5 I l l
. Co m p. Stat
. 5/ 8- 111( A )(1) ( 2007) ; Ap pell ee’ s Br. at 25. T he Illinois H u m an R igh ts A ct w as am en d ed effectiv e in 2 0 0 8 , too late to h el p D r. D ookeran or M r. G arci a, to all ow em ployees to c hoose bet w een adm i ni s t r a t i ve a dj udi cat ion bef ore the I HRC a nd a c i r c ui t cour t . S e e 7 7 5 I l l
. Co m p. S t a t . 5 / 7 A102( D ) ( 3) , ( D ) ( 4) , and (G)( 2) ( 2008) , as am ende d b y Pu blicAct 9 5 -2 4 3 , § 5
. and dist i ngui shi ng Cahoon line of case s on th is basis)
. 2 M or eo ve r, i n B lount i ts el f, the I l l i no i s S upr eme Cou rt did notsa y i t w as r es ol vi ng a confl i ct a m ong appell ate co ur t dec i si o ns . I t was s i m pl y o ve r r uli ng a c o ns i st en t b ut er ro neous l i ne o fautho ri ty. S ee Blou nt, 90 4 N
. E.2 d a t1 2
- 1 3 , 1 5 ; s e e a l s o B lountv. St r oud, 87 7 N
. E.2 d 49, 61 ( I l l
. A pp . 20 07) ( sta tin g, i n opi ni on r eve rs ed by su pr eme c o ur t: “ Allo fthe c o ur ts i n I l l i no i s to ha ve c o nsi dered the i ssue have hel d that I l l i noi s Ci rcui t Cour ts lac k th e s u bj ec t m at te r j u ri sd ict ion to ad j u d ica te civ il rights claim s brou gh t un d er state an d fed eral l aw . ”). Thus , the i dea tha t Dr
. D o o k er anc o ul d ha ve b r o ught his fede ral d iscrim ination claim s w ith his certiorari24 N o. 11

- 3197

I ag ree w ith th e m ajor ity th at su b ject m at t er jur isd iction is 3 not precl ud ed b y the R ooker- Fel dm an d octr ine a nd tha t claim precl usi on w ould ap pl y i n sim il ar c ase s brou ght after Bl o unt w as d e c i d ed , as it un lock ed the Illino is st ate co u rth ou se d oo rs f or fed era l d iscrim ina tion claim s in tho se cases. peti ti on t o I l l i noi s s tat e cou rt s in 2006 i s untenab l e. Befo r e th e I l l i no i s S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n in Blount, no l i ti gant coul d rea sonab l y hav e be en e x p ec ted to choos e t o att em pt to i nval i date t h e s ol i d w al lo f pr e c e de nt i n the Cahoon l i ne o fcas es ove r doi ng wh at Dr. Dook er an di d here

— br i ng hi s fed er aldi scr i m i nati on cl ai m s in federa lco urt. Fo r this reaso n, Ido not bel i eve thatD r. Dook er an’ s s tat e co urt proce edi ngs provi ded hi m with a fulland f ai r opportu n ity to be hear d on hi s federa ldi scr i m i nati on cl ai m s. 3 Altho ugh i t i s perha ps l i tt l e co ns o l at i o n t o Dr
. Do o k er an, Ita ke som e co m f or t fro m tw o poi nts. Fi rs t, atl eas t a t the t i m e o fo ra lar gum ent, Dr. Dooker an ’ s di scr i m i nation claim s un d er state law w ere stil l p en d ing before th e Illino is H u m an R igh ts C om m iss i on, w h ich co u ld yet give him an op p ortu nity to be he ard on th e m eri t s . S e c o nd , th i s c a s e ma y b e a c a s e o fn e a r l y l a s ti mpr ess i o n. Re ce ntc ha ng es i n b o thI l l i no i s ca se l aw a nd st atutes o fferho pe f o rg r ea te rc l ar i tyi n h an dl i ng these cas es that com bi ne federa land sta te l aw o n bo thdi sc r i m i na ti o n a nd o th erty pes o fc l ai m s. In the e nd , tho ugh, Ic a nn o ta g r e e tha tDr. Do o k e r a n ha d a fu l l an d fair op p or tu n ity to h av e h is c laim s h ea rd in th e I l l i no i s tr i alc o urt in 200 6. Iwoul d r ev er se a ndN o. 11

- 3197 25
re m an d for fu rt h er p ro c ee d in gs on th e m er its of h is federa ldi scr i m i nati on cl ai m s.

5- 3- 13