A federal judge from the Northern District of Illinois has granted the University of Chicago’s motion to dismiss a premises-liability claim brought by a University of Chicago assistant football coach, who alleged that the university was negligent when it allowed an inebriated fan, who assaulted the coach, into a restricted area around the stadium.
Meanwhile, the litigation also involved plaintiff John Bear with regard to his claim of gender discrimination in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., though that claim was not addressed in the opinion.
By way of background, Bear was hired in June 2016. When he was recruited for the position, he was allegedly told by the University’s head football coach, Chris Wilkerson, that the university had a “strong athletic department” and that the plaintiff “had the support of an ‘up and coming athletic director.'” To entice the plaintiff to accept the position, Wilkerson allegedly made multiple statements to the plaintiff describing the university’s “commitment to excellence” and “desire to have a winning football team.”
After taking the position, the plaintiff realized that the university’s athletic director, Erin McDermott, allegedly had “little interest in either treating male coaches fairly or building a strong football team.” Instead, McDermott and the university were principally interested in the profit to be gained from the football program, according to the complaint.
“To that end, McDermott allegedly encouraged unruly ‘tailgates’ before and during University football games,” wrote the court. “According to the plaintiff, McDermott directed for tables and tents to be set out around the university football field on game days — specifically, on 56th Street and its surrounding sidewalks in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. At these tailgates, students, alumni, and parents of students allegedly drank alcohol excessively and without restriction.”
The plaintiff claimed that the excessive drinking at tailgates led to dangerous incidents. He alleged that on one occasion, for example, some parents of university students began shouting racial slurs at some other parents and a fight almost broke out. The plaintiff further alleged that the football coaching staff expressed concerns about the danger posed by the tailgates, but McDermott and the university failed to take any action or put security measures in place at the tailgates.
Co-defendant Jeff Mason is the parent of a university football player, who allegedly had a history of disruptive behavior during university tailgates, including “excessive drinking, personal insults, and complaints and threats against the coaching staff for refusing to allow his son to play more during games.” Bear further claimed that Mason would “regularly email other parents of students and express frustration and disappointment with the football coaching staff.”
Bear alleged that “some of the students’ parents (at tailgates) began avoiding Mason given his tendency to get drunk and unruly at tailgates and engage in derogatory treatment of the football coaching staff.” He alleged that he, Wilkerson, and other members of the football coaching staff repeatedly expressed their concerns and frustrations regarding Mason to both McDermott and the University.
On Nov. 12, 2016, Mason attended the 56th Street tailgate prior to game, where he allegedly drank excessive amounts of alcohol and became increasingly disorderly. After the game, the plaintiff was in a restricted section of the football stadium with other coaches, players, and members of his family. Allegedly, Mason began belligerently shouting at University employees to be let into the stadium and, because there was no security at the football game, was able to force his way into the restricted section. Bear claimed that Mason violently grabbed him by the wrist, spun him around, and began yelling at him, shouting derogatory remarks regarding his management and coaching of the football team. The plaintiff believed “he was being attacked and assaulted.”
On Nov. 14, 2016, McDermott informed Bear that the university was placing him on “investigative suspension.” Bear allegedly presented voluminous support from parents and coaches. Yet the university decided to sever ties, giving him a choice between resigning or having his employment terminated. The plaintiff resigned, “under duress,” to protect his effort to find other employment. The plaintiff sued on Sept. 8, 2017.
In his premises-liability claim, brought under Illinois state law, he alleged that the university encouraged and facilitated the tailgates, had a duty of reasonable care to ensure the safety of students, alumni, parents, and employees after inviting them onto the campus, and breached its duty of reasonable care by “allowing and encouraging unruly tailgates with no security” and “failing to ensure a safe work environment for its staff.” Because the university allegedly breached its duty of reasonable care, Mason was “able to access the restricted area of the football stadium where he was assaulted.
On Nov. 7, 2017, the university moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s premises-liability claim on either of two independent grounds: (1) the claim is preempted by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act (IWCA), which provides the exclusive remedy for alleged employer negligence against employees; and (2) under the no-duty rule, the university cannot be held liable for the alleged criminal actions of a third party.
In response, the plaintiff argued that the IWCA does not preempt his premises-liability claim because the university is liable to him in a dual capacity: both as his employer and as a business inviter. The plaintiff further argued that the university can be held liable for the criminal actions of a third party because, by hosting tailgates, the university created a “volatile environment.”
Tackling the IWCA argument first, the court summarized the plaintiff’s position — the University “owed all of those individuals (himself included) a separate and distinct duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining] the premises in a reasonably safe condition.”
The court wrote that “as the owner or possessor of the land where the tailgates were held, the university may have had common-law duties to the non-employees that were invited. However, the Illinois Supreme Court has explained that ‘mere ownership of land does not endow [an employer] with a second legal persona or entity’ for purposes of the dual-capacity exception. Sharp v. Gallagher, 95 Ill. 2d 322, 447 N.E.2d 786, 788, 69 Ill. Dec. 351 (Ill. 1983). Were it otherwise, the IWCA’s exclusivity would be ‘reduced to shambles’ because ‘an employer, as part of his business, will almost always own or occupy premises, and maintain them as an integral part of conducting his business.’ Id. Thus, the mere fact that the university owned or possessed the land on which the confrontation with Mason occurred is insufficient to trigger the dual-capacity exception.” Id.
Further, the football stadium is “an integral part of conducting” the University’s business, so far as it relates to the plaintiff’s employment as a university football coach. Sharp, 447 N.E.2d at 788.
Because the plaintiff’s premises-liability claim was preempted by the IWCA, the court did not consider the university’s alternate argument that it cannot be held liable for the alleged criminal actions of a third party.
John Bear v. Jeff Mason and The University Of Chicago, N.D. Ill.; No. 17 C 6512, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121822; 7/20/18
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff-counter defendant) Brianna L Golan, Peter Michael Katsaros, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Golan Christie Taglia LLP, Chicago, IL. ( for defendant-counter claimant) Michael Cleary Bruck, LEAD ATTORNEY, Spellmire & Bruck LLP, Chicago, IL. (for University of Chicago defendant) Sandy L Morris, LEAD ATTORNEY, Valentine Austriaco & Bueschel, P.C., Chicago, IL.
