Zeigler v. County of Peoria
Filing
16
ORDER AND OPINION entered by Chief Judge James E. Shadid on 6/14/16. Defendants' Motion to Strike 7 is GRANTED. SEE FULL WRITTEN ORDER. (FDT, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 14 June, 2016 03:57:43 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
RICHARD C. ZEIGLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF PEORIA, a non-home-rule
unit of local government, and JOHNNA
INGERSOLL, in her official capacity as
Coroner of the COUNTY OF PEORIA,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 16-1022
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is now before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Prayer for
Punitive Damages [#7]. For the reasons set forth below, the Defendants’ Motion to Strike [#7] is
GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Richard C. Zeigler (“Zeigler”) filed a complaint against Defendants County of
Peoria (“Peoria County”) and Johnna Ingersoll (“Ingersoll”) that alleges discriminatory
employment practices on the basis of religion. The complaint states that Ingersoll, who was
Zeigler’s supervisor when he was employed at Peoria County, failed to reasonably accommodate
Zeigler’s religious beliefs by refusing to allow him to attend two Jehovah’s Witness conferences
in June 2012 and August 2012; by suspending Zeigler for 45 days; and by terminating Zeigler’s
employment with Peoria County. Zeigler explained that one or more of his co-workers had
offered to work the shifts he would miss to attend the conferences and that Zeigler’s absence
from said conferences infringed on his sincerely held religious beliefs.
1
Zeigler filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) against Peoria County for violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(“Title VII”). 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq. On May 29, 2015, the EEOC found reasonable cause to
determine that Peoria County violated Title VII by failing to provide Zeigler with reasonable
accommodation for his religious beliefs and then terminating his employment. The EEOC
invited Peoria County to engage in informal conciliation efforts, but the EEOC was ultimately
unable to secure a conciliation agreement.
Zeigler then filed this lawsuit against Peoria County and Ingersoll in her official capacity
as Coroner of Peoria County under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et
seq., and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. Zeigler’s prayer for relief
includes, inter alia, a request for punitive damages.
Defendants filed a motion to strike Plaintiff’s prayer for punitive damages and a
supporting memorandum on March 24, 2016. See E.C.F. Docs. 7, 8. The Defendants’
memorandum states that Peoria County and Ingersoll are governmental entities and political
subdivisions of the State of Illinois. It further states that punitive damages cannot be recovered
against government entities or local officials sued in their official capacity, citing § 1981a(b)(1)
and Passananti v. Cook County, 689 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2012).
Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ motion, which narrowly interprets § 1981a(b)(1)
as applying to a government, government agency, or political subdivision. See E.C.F. Doc. 11.
The response asserts that Ingersoll is not a government, government agency, or political
subdivision, but rather a person employed by Peoria County, and therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to
seek punitive damages against her.
2
STANDARD OF REVIEW
On a motion to strike under Rule 12(f), a court may strike from a pleading “any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). Regarding
claims of intentional discrimination in employment:
A complaining party may recover punitive damages under this section against a
respondent (other than a government, governmental agency or political
subdivision) if the complaining party demonstrates that the respondent engaged in
a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless
indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual.
42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1).
ANALYSIS
The issue before the Court today is whether Zeigler can seek punitive damages for a Title
VII claim of employment discrimination against a county employee sued in her official capacity.
The Supreme Court has asserted that punitive damages are not intended to compensate the
injured party, but instead meant to punish the tortfeasor and deter him and others from similar
conduct. Newport v. Fact Concerts, 453 U.S. 247, 266-67 (1981). An award of punitive damages
against a government entity punishes “only the taxpayers, who took not part in the commission
of the tort” because they will bear the burden of paying the damages. Id. 267. In the Civil Rights
Act of 1991, Congress expressly prohibited the award of punitive damages against governmental
entities in cases involving unlawful intentional discrimination in employment. 42 U.S.C. §
1981a(b)(1). As stated above, punitive damages may not be awarded when the respondent is “a
government, governmental agency or political subdivision” even when the complaining party
demonstrates that the discriminatory actions violated the federally protected rights of the
complainant. Id.
In the instant case, the complaint states that Peoria County is a non-home rule unit of
local government and Ingersoll is a Peoria County employee. Zeigler brought the claim against
3
Ingersoll in her official capacity as Coroner of Peoria County. Zeigler does not argue that he
should be able to seek punitive damages from Peoria County. Rather, his memorandum
responding to the motion applies a narrow interpretation of § 1981a(b)(1) and argues that he can
seek punitive damages from Ingersoll because she is a person and not a government, government
agency, or political subdivision. This Court does not find this argument persuasive because the
Seventh Circuit has made clear that “[a]n official capacity suit is tantamount to a claim against
the government entity itself.” Guzman v. Sheahan, 495 F.3d 852, 859 (7th Cir. 2007). See also
Passananti, 689 F.3d 655, 677 (7th Cir. 2012) (supervisor may not be held individually liable and
punitive damages cannot be recovered against a government entity for discrimination under Title
VII). Thus, because this action is brought against Ingersoll in her official capacity as Coroner,
Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages must be dismissed. Id.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Strike [#7] is Granted.
Signed on this 14th day of June, 2016.
s/ James E. Shadid
James E. Shadid
Chief United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?