Minute Order Form (06/97)

Nes States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Ke eof Assigned sage | “7 William J. Hibbler Sitting Judge if Other
Ne Magistrat® Judge than Assigned Judge

cas} NUMBER 01 C 8863 DATE 06/19/2002
CASE Donato v. Brach & Brock
TITLE —_—
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (#4-1)
DOCKET ENTRY: ce
qd) im) Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) im) Brief in support of motion due 7
(3) a Answer brief to motion due___._ Reply to answer brief due.
(4) o Ruling/Hearing on___setfor___at
(5) o Status hearing [held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor__at
(6) Qo Pretrial conference [held/continued to] {set for/re-set for]on___—setfor_——s at.
(7) oO Trial [set for/re-set for] on ____at
(8) ‘oO (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice,and without costs [by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) (OGeneral Rule21 OOFRCP41(a)(1) [ FRCP41(a)(2).
(10) MH [Otherdocketentry] For the reasons stated on this order, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss.
All pending dates and motions are terminated as moot. Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order.
al) ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. number of notices
Notices mailed by judge’s staff.
‘Notified counsel by telephone. . 4.2002
ov | Docketing to mail notices.
7 | Mail AO 450 form. L¥no 249) dockiting ae
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. ws i Sla‘g: ‘a
‘ 6h: date mailed notieg
pe las "2H O22
eee mailing deputy initials

ae



ORDER

Antonio Donato (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Brach & Brock Confections, Inc.
(“Defendant”), alleging a violation of the American with Disabilities Act (CADA”). 42 U.S.C. § § 12111 -
12117 (2002). Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim; specifically, Defendant argues Plaintiff's
claims are barred by res judicata. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

Facts

Plaintiff filed a discrimination claim with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”),
alleging he had been harassed and discharged by his employer Brach and Brock Confections, Inc. because of
his sex, physical handicap and mental handicap. The IDHR reviewed and rejected these claims for lack of
substantial evidence. Plaintiff appealed to the state’s internal review agency, the Illinois Human Rights
Commission (“IHRC”), which affirmed the IDHR’s dismissal based on lack of substantial evidence. Plaintiff
then appealed the IHRC’s decision to the Illinois Appellate Court with respect only to his mental handicap.
On June 27, 2000, the Illinois Appellate Court issued an order affirming the IHRC’s dismissal of Plaintiff's
claim. Finally, Plaintiff's petition to the Ilinois Supreme Court for further review of the IHRC’s dismissal
was denied. Plaintiff now brings this claim in Federal Court alleging that Defendant unlawfully discharged
Plaintiff in violation of Title I of the ADA.

Standard of Review

A plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted only if “it appears beyond doubt
that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Leahy
v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508, 912 F.2d 917, 921 (7* Cir. 1990)(quoting Conley
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 42, 45-46 (1957). “We assume well-pleaded allegations are true and shall draw all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Bush, 918 F.2d
1323, 1326 (7 Cir. 1990). In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “we must accept as true all
the plaintiffs well-pleaded factual allegations and the inference reasonably drawn from them.” Gibson v.
Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7 Cir. 1990); Yeksignian v. Nappi, 900 F.2d 101, 102 (7 Cir. 1990). “The
purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the complaint, not to decide the merits.” Gibson,
910 F.2d at 1520 (quoting Triad Assocs., Inc. v. Chicago Hous. Auth., 892 F.2d 583, 586 (7 Cir, 1989)).

When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, anything outside the four corners of the
complaint must be excluded or else the motion is converted into one for summary judgment. However, the
“court is permitted to take judicial notice of matters of public record without converting a 12(b)(6) into a
motion for summary judgment.” Henson v. CSC Credit Serv., 29 F.3d 280, 284 (7* Cir. 1994).

Analysis

Federal courts must “give the same preclusive effect to state court judgments that those judgments
would be given in the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged.” Kremer v. Chemical
Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466 (1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (1994). Thus if Illinois law precludes
Plaintiff's claim from being filed before this Court, then res judicata bars the federal claim. Under Illinois
law, res judicata is applicable if: (1) there was a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent
jurisdiction; (2) there is an identity of causes of action; and (3) the parties in the lawsuits are identical.
DeLuna v. Trester, 185 Tll.2d 565, 572 (Ill. 1999).

Under Illinois law, Plaintiff's claim before this court is barred by res judicata. Plaintiff’s disability
claims against Defendant were dismissed by the IDHR, the IHRC and the Illinois Appellate Court and was
denied review by the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Appellate Court is a court of competent
jurisdiction because state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over ADA claims, Bagnola v, City of Chicago,
No. 96 C 6342, 1997 WL 106126 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 1997). Furthermore, Plaintiff's cause of action in the state
proceedings against Defendant is identical to his claim before this Court. Moreover, the investigation and
consideration of the IDHR, IHRC and the Illinois Appellate Court provided Defendant a full and fair
Opportunity to litigate the claim before this Court. Accordingly, the Illinois Appellate Court’s decision
rejecting Plaintiff's disability claims are given full faith and credit by this Court; thus, res judicata bars the
plaintiff's claim.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on res judicata is GRANTED.