Case law

McKay v. Vitas Healthcare Corp. of Illinois

232 F. Supp. 3d 1038 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 7, 2017

Hearing qualifies as a major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (i)(l)(i). … Failure to accommodate To establish a claim for failure to accommodate, McKay must establish that: (1) she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) Vitas was aware of her disability; and (3) Vitas failed to reasonably

Cooper v. The City of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 20, 2018

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides a defense in a section 1983 suit for damages where, among other things, the right the officer is claimed to have violated was not a "clearly established constitutional right. … The Court concludes Clyne cannot invoke qualified immunity based on exigent circumstances, as it was clearly established that criminal damage to property is not the sort of conduct that gives rise to exigent circumstances

Ruehman v. Village of Palos Park

842 F. Supp. 1043 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 21, 1994

Puerto Rico Aqueduct applies to Eleventh Amendment immunity the reasoning of Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 , 105 S.Ct. 2806 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), as to interlocutory appeals of denials of qualified immunity. … Even without further rulings in this case on the merits of the claims against Pucinski, there may, now or in the future, be clearly established law so that individual damages claims against Clerk’s office personnel can be

Hundrieser v. Heckler

582 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 19, 1984

Nothing in this basic statutory definition of disability suggests that claimants have to prove that they suffer from a “severe” impairment in order to qualify as disabled. … First, while the section speaks of the “severity” of a claimant’s impairments it quite clearly defines the requisite level of severity by reference to the claimant’s present ability to do work.

Harriston v. Chicago Tribune Co.

771 F. Supp. 933 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 6, 1991

Clearly, Harriston was not demoted or fired when she was transferred to the Senior Sales job. … The working conditions Harriston faced were not sufficiently onerous to establish a constructive discharge.

Oglesby v. COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF CHICAGO/WIS.

620 F. Supp. 1336 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 28, 1985

Absent such direct evidence, a prima facie case may be established when a plaintiff shows (id. at 96): (1) he was a member of the protected class (persons aged 40 to 70); (2) he was qualified for his position; (3) he was … But to be “qualified” for purposes of establishing a prima facie case, an employee such as Oglesby must show he “was performing his job at a level that met his employer’s legitimate expectations.” Huhn v.

Doe I v. Kane County

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 11, 2018

“[O]fficers are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … When assessing the clearly established prong of qualified immunity “the inquiry is aimed at determining whether a reasonable person in the officer’s position would have understood his actions to be against the law at the

United States v. Hynes

771 F. Supp. 928 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 4, 1991

Considerations of sovereign immunity, like considerations of federal supremacy, cannot create a cause of action where none exists under state law. United States v. State of California, 655 F.2d 914, 919 (9th Cir.1980). … The evidence presented by defendants demonstrates that both governmental purchasers qualified for exemptions under 11 500.9a by filing applications pursuant to § 194.1. (Def.’s Submission, Ex. B-3, B-5.)

Vargas v. Globetrotters Engineering Corp.

4 F. Supp. 2d 780 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · May 7, 1998

Vargas’ only complaint with GEC’s behavior is that it did not restore her to her former position (or an equivalent one) when her leave ended, an accusation which clearly falls under the rubric of § 2614. 4 The question, therefore … First, GEC argues that because Vargas could not type 70 words per minute she was not qualified for a secretarial position at headquarters.

Mario's Butcher Shop & Food Center, Inc. v. Armour & Co.

574 F. Supp. 653 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 29, 1983

Finally, the State of Illinois, recognizing the need for uniformity in the field, specifically deferred to the federal authorities in establishing regulations for the inspection of meat processing establishments such as those … Clearly, in light of the foregoing, the instant case may properly be brought under state law.

Carroccia v. Anderson

249 F. Supp. 2d 1016 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 11, 2003

Defendants are clearly on notice that they are charged with conspiracy to provide prosecutors with false and misleading evidence of Carroccia’s guilt. This is adequate under federal pleading standards. … They point out that police officers are immune from civil claims of conspiracy to present false testimony. House v. Belford, 956 F.2d 711 (7th Cir.1992).

Browne v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company

168 F. Supp. 796 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 7, 1959

The only allegations with respect to the business of either defendant are contained in the complaint which alleges that both of these defendants are qualified, authorized, and are in fact doing business in the State of Illinois … It is clearly seen from this statement of purpose that amended Sec. 1332 (c) is not specifically directed at corporations such as defendants in the case at bar, nor is it specifically directed at a case of this nature.

Little v. STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPT. OF REVENUE

907 F. Supp. 280 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 8, 1995

Plaintiff advised Hirsch that this new requirement unfairly discriminated against African-American agents who were otherwise qualified for the position. … Since plaintiff was already employed by the Department, these complaints were clearly not a matter of private concern.

Tice v. American Airlines, Inc.

192 F.R.D. 270 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 19, 2000

sixtieth birthdays, as Flight Officers, American Airlines refused to allow this. 2 In support of its position, American Airlines cites its policies which: 1) require that all cockpit crew members (hired after 1964) must be qualified … Finally, the policy favoring exclusion clearly outweighs Plaintiffs’ need for the information.

Castellano v. Chicago P.D.

129 F. Supp. 2d 1184 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 12, 2001

These facts, if proven, could establish the segregation officers’ de *1191 liberate indifference. See Anton, 47 F.Supp.2d at 1000 . … Thus, defendants’ claim of qualified immunity—based on plaintiffs placement in CCDOC—is inapplicable.

Whirl v. City of Harvey

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 2, 2025

Finally, for the same reasons already explained, Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at this time. … In the Fourth Amendment context, an officer can prevail on a qualified immunity defense if there was at least “arguable probable cause” such that “a reasonable officer could have mistakenly believed that probable cause

Salley v. Sgt. Parker

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 26, 2022

Salley relies on the general proposition that deliberate indifference to an inmate’s medical need is a clearly established violation of the Eighth Amendment, precluding an application of qualified immunity. … Ct. 548 (2017) (explaining that a plaintiff cannot defeat qualified immunity by defining clearly established law “at a high level of generality”).

Gatlin v. Village of Summit

150 F. Supp. 3d 984 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 15, 2015

But the Court cannot say - that her contentions in the present case are clearly inconsistent with her testimony before the Pension Board. … To establish a claim under section- 1981, a plaintiff may proceed under either, the direct or indirect method of proof.

McCutcheon v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.

586 F. Supp. 2d 917 · District Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 6, 2008

qualified as “requirements” under the analysis it had just set forth: In the present case, there is nothing to contradict this normal meaning. … has established federal requirements applicable to the device.

Littrell v. Gulbrandson

District Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 12, 2018

Humphrey and by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … The individual defendant officers are not entitled to qualified immunity Defendants argue in the alternative that they are entitled to qualified immunity