Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Firefighter’s Gender Violence Suit

The Illinois Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling that dismissed the state law claims of a female lieutenant who claims she was assaulted by another officer, and then retaliated against when she reported it. Michelle Giese claims Lieutenant Nathan Boyce picked her up and pushed her against a wall at a structure fire on October 18, 2018 in the City of Kankakee.

Giese originally filed suit in federal court alleging a violation of her Fourth Amendment Rights, gender discrimination under Title VII, and fourteen other counts. The US District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed her federal claims and refused to take jurisdiction over her state law claims. The 7th Circuit upheld the district court. Here is earlier coverage of that decision.

Giese then filed suit in Kankakee County Circuit Court naming Boyce and the City, alleging a claim under the Gender Violence Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery. The operative date of the complaint was July 17, 2023, or 14 months after the district court relinquished jurisdiction over the state law claims. On October 2, 2023, Giese filed an amended complaint alleging three additional claims under the Illinois Gender Violence Act.

The city sought to have the case dismissed based upon the one year statute of limitations contained in the Illinois Tort Immunity Act. The defense argued that Giese failed to file her complaint in state court within one year from the date the district court relinquished supplemental jurisdiction, which occurred on May 10, 2022. Giese argued that the Gender Violence Act specifically created a seven (7) year statute of limitations, so while some of her claims may be time barred, the Gender Violence Act claims should survive.

The Kankakee County Circuit Court agreed with the city concluding that the seven-year statute of limitations was not applicable to governmental entities, and dismissed her claims based on the statute of limitations. That prompted Giese to appeal. Quoting from the Court of Appeals decision:

  • Defendants [argue] that the circuit court properly dismissed the amended complaint as barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in section 8-101(a) of the Tort Immunity Act.
  • Section 8-101(a) of the Tort Immunity Act provides: “No civil action other than an action described in subsection (b) [medical malpractice actions] may be commenced in any court against a local entity or any of its employees for any injury unless it is commenced within one year from the date that the injury was received or the cause of action accrued.”
  • The statute further provides that, “[f]or purposes of this Article, the term ‘civil action’ includes any action, whether based upon the common law or statutes or Constitution of this State.”
  • Applying [Illinois Supreme Court] reasoning here, the one-year statute of limitations in section 8-101(a) controls over the limitations set forth in the Gender Violence Act.
  • Plaintiff’s attempt to distinguish [precedent] because it involved the statute of limitations for construction-related claims rather than the statute of limitations for Gender Violence Act claims is unavailing.
  • Nothing in the … decision suggested that the holding was limited to cases involving section 13-214(a).
  • Rather, in sweeping language, the supreme court noted the legislative intent to apply section 8-101to “any possible claim” against a local governmental entity and its employees, concluding broadly that, given the breadth of this intent, “section 8-101 necessarily controls over other statutes of limitation or repose.”
  • In sum, the circuit court did not err in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint as untimely pursuant to the Tort Immunity Act’s one-year statute of limitations set forth in section 8-101(a).
  • For the reasons stated, we affirm the circuit court’s order granting defendants’ section 2 619(a)(5) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice.

Here is a copy of the decision:

About Curt Varone

Curt Varone has over 45 years of fire service experience and 35 as a practicing attorney licensed in both Rhode Island and Maine. His background includes 29 years as a career firefighter in Providence (retiring as a Deputy Assistant Chief), as well as volunteer and paid on call experience. He is the author of two books: Legal Considerations for Fire and Emergency Services, (2006, 2nd ed. 2011, 3rd ed. 2014, 4th ed. 2022) and Fire Officer's Legal Handbook (2007), and is a contributing editor for Firehouse Magazine writing the Fire Law column.
x

Check Also

California Firefighters Not Liable in RAMA case

The California Court of Appeals has upheld a trial court ruling concluding that the City of Petaluma and two of its firefighter-paramedics cannot be held liable for the medical injuries of a patient who repeatedly decline medical aid. Marites Murphy filed suit after she suffered a stroke following a car crash.

Indiana Firefighter Alleges FMLA and ADA Violation Over PTSD Claim

An Indiana firefighter who claims he was harassed and defamed by his fire chief after suffering from work-related PTSD, has filed suit alleging violations of the FMLA and ADA, retaliation, and defamation. Chris O’Neil filed suit against the City of Richmond and former fire chief Jerry Purcell.