A federal appeals court has ruled that a former Illinois firefighter may continue pursuing his Title VII race discrimination and retaliation claims despite an adverse administrative termination proceeding, while affirming the dismissal of his constitutional and state-law claims.

Vairrun Strickland, an African American firefighter with the City of Markham Fire Department, worked for the department for more than a decade. According to the court, Strickland was interviewed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2020 during an investigation involving discrimination complaints made by another firefighter. During that interview, Strickland reported witnessing race-based discrimination against the firefighter and stated that the fire chief failed to address the conduct.

Strickland alleged that after participating in the EEOC investigation, the chief and the department retaliated against him by targeting him for minor disciplinary matters and denying him a promotion.

In January 2021, the department filed administrative charges against Strickland. Following hearings before the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, the board terminated his employment in April 2021. The board found that Strickland had lied to detectives during an arson investigation and had endangered department personnel by reporting for duty while infected with COVID-19.

The following month, Strickland filed suit in Illinois state court seeking review of the board’s decision. The state court remanded the matter to the board while retaining jurisdiction and directed the board to issue an amended decision containing additional information. The board issued an amended decision in April 2022 and again upheld Strickland’s discharge.

Rather than continue the state-court challenge, Strickland voluntarily dismissed the case. He did not otherwise seek judicial review of the amended administrative decision.

Meanwhile, Strickland had already filed a federal lawsuit alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, denial of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment through 42 U.S.C. §1983, and violations of the Illinois State Officials and Employees Ethics Act.

The federal district court entered summary judgment for the City of Markham and the fire chief, concluding that all of Strickland’s claims were barred by claim preclusion because of the administrative proceedings and the state-court litigation. Strickland appealed.

The Seventh Circuit reached a different conclusion with respect to the Title VII claims. The court explained that under Supreme Court precedent, unreviewed state administrative decisions do not have preclusive effect on Title VII claims. Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in University of Tennessee v. Elliott, the court noted that Congress “did not intend unreviewed state administrative proceedings to have preclusive effect on Title VII claims.”

Because Strickland voluntarily dismissed his state-court challenge, the administrative decision remained effectively unreviewed. As a result, the Seventh Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims on claim-preclusion grounds.

The court reached a different conclusion regarding Strickland’s constitutional and state-law claims. Under federal common-law principles, findings made in a judicial or quasi-judicial administrative proceeding may have preclusive effect on claims brought under §1983 and similar statutes.

The Seventh Circuit agreed that the administrative proceedings and the federal lawsuit arose from the same underlying transaction—Strickland’s termination. The court noted that Illinois applies a “transactional test,” under which different legal theories are considered the same cause of action when they arise from the same operative facts.

The court also rejected Strickland’s argument that he lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims. Although the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners lacked authority to decide civil-rights claims directly, the court concluded that Strickland could have raised the substance of his discrimination and retaliation allegations as defenses during the administrative proceedings and could have joined those claims with a request for judicial review in state court.

The Seventh Circuit therefore vacated the dismissal of Strickland’s Title VII claims and remanded those claims for further proceedings. The dismissal of his §1983 equal-protection claim and his state-law claims was affirmed.