Dayton v. Oakton Community College et al
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 12/6/2016: For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court denies defendant's motion to stay, filed in Case No. 16-cv-2902. The case remains set for a status hearing this morning as previously ordered. (mk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DANIEL M. FILIPEK,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
OAKTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
)
Defendant.
)
------------------------------------------------------------- )
)
DONALD A. KRZYZAK,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
OAKTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
)
Defendant.
)
------------------------------------------------------------- )
BARRY H. DAYTON, individually and
)
on behalf of others similarly situated,
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
OAKTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, et al.
)
Defendants
)
Case No. 16 C 2902
Case No. 16 C 3215
Case No. 16 C 6812
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:
In separate cases, Daniel Filipek and Donald Krzyzak have sued Oakton
Community College, alleging that OCC violated the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act by instituting a policy not to employ as part-time faculty anyone who is an annuitant
of the State University Retirement System. Barry Dayton has filed a similar suit on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, and about eighteen others have opted
into Dayton's case. All three cases have been consolidated. OCC has moved to stay
the proceedings in the three cases pending the determination of an unfair labor practice
charge brought by the Oakton Community College Adjunct Faculty Association, a labor
union, before the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board, a state administrative
agency. OCC relies on Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States,
424 U.S. 800 (1976), and Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
Under Colorado River, "[a]bstention from the exercise of federal jurisdiction is the
exception, not the rule," Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 813, and it may be invoked only in
those "exceptional circumstances” in which abstention "would clearly serve an important
countervailing interest." Int'l Coll. of Surgeons v. City of Chicago, 153 F.3d 356, 360
(7th Cir. 1996) (quoting County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U.S. 185, 188–
89 (1959)). A court conducts a two-part inquiry to determine if abstention is appropriate
under Colorado River. First, the court determines whether the state and federal suits
are parallel. If they are, the court then considers several factors to determine if there
are exceptional circumstances that justify abstention. Tyrer v. City of S. Beloit, 456 F.3d
744, 751 (7th Cir. 2006).
OCC's request for abstention founders on the first step of this analysis; this case
and the unfair labor practice proceeding are not parallel. For actions to be parallel,
formal symmetry is not required; "a suit is parallel when substantially the same parties
are contemporaneously litigating substantially the same issues in another forum." Id. at
752. To determine whether two suits are parallel, a district court "should examine
whether the suits involve the same parties, arise out of the same facts, and raise similar
factual and legal issues." Id. The union represents some, though not all, of the plaintiffs
2
and potential plaintiffs in the ADEA cases, and the labor board proceeding and these
cases arise out of the same general factual scenario. But they do not present the same
or even similar legal issues. The central issue in this case is whether OCC's policy
amounts to discrimination based on age. The central issue in the proceeding before the
state labor board is whether OCC bargained in good faith when it changed its policy.
These issues are not even close to being similar. In addition, as plaintiffs correctly point
out, a favorable ruling by the labor board likely would amount to an order to bargain in
good faith; it would not necessarily result in relief for the aggrieved faculty members.
And one way or another, the present case would have to proceed irrespective of the
state labor board's ruling, because the plaintiffs in the ADEA cases are entitled to have
their federal statutory rights adjudicated, a task that the state labor board cannot and
will not undertake. For these reasons, assuming for the sake of argument that Colorado
River abstention applies where the purportedly parallel proceeding is before a state
administrative agency and not a court, abstention is inappropriate in this case.
Under Younger, absent extraordinary circumstances, a federal court should not
interfere with a pending state criminal proceeding. Younger, 401 U.S. at 53-54. The
Younger doctrine has also been applied when the parallel proceeding is a state
administrative proceeding. See AFSCME v. Tristano, 898 F.3d 1302, 1303 (7th Cir.
1990). Abstention is appropriate, absent extraordinary circumstances, if there is an
ongoing state proceeding that is judicial in nature, implicates important state interests,
and offers an adequate opportunity for review of the federal plaintiff's federal claims.
See, e.g., Forty One News, Inc. v. Cty. of Lake, 491 F.3d 662, 665-66 (7th Cir. 2007).
The labor board proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding, and it is fair to assume that it
3
implicates an important state interest. But it does not offer any opportunity for review of
the plaintiffs' age discrimination claims; OCC does not even suggest otherwise. Thus
Younger abstention is inappropriate. The Court also notes that more generally, OCC
has not shown that litigation of this case will interfere in any way with the state labor
board proceeding. It is conceivable that some persons may end up testifying twice—
assuming the state labor board holds an evidentiary hearing—but that hardly amounts
to interference.
For these reasons, the Court denies defendant's motion to stay (dkt. no. 28).
Date: December 6, 2016
_______________________________
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY
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?