Case law

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AIC Security Investigation, Ltd.

820 F. Supp. 1060 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 5, 1993

Further, AIC has failed to establish that the above errors have any connection whatsoever to short-term memory loss. … AIC cannot establish that driving was an essential function of the position of Executive Director of AIC. Therefore, any inability to drive could not serve as the basis for asserting the defense.

Harris v. Ealey

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 8, 2021

“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense, and once raised, the plaintiff bears the burden of defeating it by showing: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established … Here, Harris failed to meet his burden to defeat a qualified immunity defense.

Iqbal Jafree v. Scott

372 F. Supp. 264 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 20, 1974

The complaint insofar as it seeks damages against the named defendants individually is barred by the doctrine of Public Officials Immunity. … The property rights of state employees in their employment is defined and established in the Illinois Personnel Code, Chapter 127, Section 63bl08b et seq.

Golbert v. Walker

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 18, 2021

“The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates government actors from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Defendants change tack in their reply brief, spending multiple pages addressing the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity.

Hardeman v. County of Lake

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 23, 2018

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shield officials from civil lability so long their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional standards known to a reasonable person. Hernandez v. Mesa 137 S. … If one is present, then the Court looks to whether that right was clearly established at the time. Id.

Grimes v. County Of Cook

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 23, 2020

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … would have known. … A state official is protected by qualified immunity unless the plaintiff shows: (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at

Marsh-Leigh

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 22, 2025

Qualified immunity The individual City defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law holding unlawful a three-month … Qualified immunity rests on two fact-dependent inquiries: whether an official violated a statutory or constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id.

United States ex rel. Yannacopoulos v. General Dynamics

235 F.R.D. 661 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 1, 2006

Clearly, immunity from discovery for opinion work product is absolute or nearly absolute. Caremark, 195 at 616. III. … There, the documents were clearly disclosure statements and the parties agreed that Lockheed was entitled to the documents with the opinion work product redacted.

Cunningham v. Eyman

11 F. Supp. 2d 969 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 6, 1998

Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity the United States is generally immune from suits both at law and in equity unless it expressly waives such immunity and consents to be sued. See, e.g., United States v. … Keeping-in conformity with the law of sovereign immunity, however, such suits may be brought against federal officers only in their individual capacities, unless the plaintiff can establish that the United States has consented

Robert E. v. Lane

530 F. Supp. 930 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 5, 1981

The well-pleaded allegations clearly establish that practically no mental health care delivery system exists at Stateville at all. … Potential Good Faith Defenses The request for monetary damages implicates an additional issue, the affirmative defense of qualified immunity.

At v. COUNTY OF COOK, ILL.

613 F. Supp. 775 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 2, 1985

They allege that these detentions have occurred continuously well over a year, thus bolstering their allegation that the custom is well established. … City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980) (city does not share qualified immunity defense of its officers); Coleman, supra, 470 F.Supp. at 681 (county does not share immunity enjoyed by defendant

Wonsey v. City Of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 26, 2018

rights and that the Officer Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” White v. Pauly, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.

Cullom v. Dart

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 27, 2020

Specifically, the individual-capacity claim is barred by qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields a government official from liability for damages in the performance of his duties unless the official violated a clearly established constitutional or statutory right of which a reasonable person

Carr v. Village of Stickney

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 4, 2022

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Thus, qualified immunity is appropriate.

Smith v. The City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 25, 2022

Second, qualified immunity shields officers “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Gill v. Village of Melrose Park

35 F. Supp. 3d 956 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 27, 2014

Because Migliore’s limited use of force was objectively reasonable, and he had probable cause to effectuate the seizure, there is no need to address his argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Tucker v. … Williams, 682 F.3d 654, 660 (7th Cir.2012) (“Because we do not find a constitutional violation, we need not and do not address Williams' qualified immunity defense.”)..

Hispanics United of DuPage County v. Village of Addison

958 F. Supp. 1320 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 19, 1997

That case is clearly distinguishable. … As for the second, the defendant acknowledges that there is no established immunity to civil penalties, but claims that the underlying policy for imposing them is indistinguishable from the policy supporting punitive damages

Budde v. Kane County Forest Preserve

603 F. Supp. 2d 1136 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 19, 2009

If Plaintiff can establish that he was disabled, he then must show that he is a qualified individual under the ADA, meaning that he was capable of performing the essential functions of his job with or without a reasonable … Because he was terminated for violating clearly established work rules, Plaintiff is not a qualified individual with a disability entitled to protection under the ADA.

Manning v. Chambers

290 B.R. 328 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 25, 2003

This complaint was dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds. … Although both types of transactions have similarities, the distinction is not convoluted but well established.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Buntrock

217 F.R.D. 441 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 8, 2003

Such discovery clearly seeks not the facts, but the manner in which the SEC intends to marshal them. … Trigg, 791 F.2d 598 (7th Cir.1986), asserting that through such testimony, the SEC has waived all work product immunity. The burden is on the party asserting a waiver of work product immunity to establish the waiver.