Boone v. Ill. Dep't of Corr.

• Decision Date: 03 February 2023
• Docket Number: 21-cv-3229-JES-JEH
• Parties: ALVIN BOONE, BRANDON HESTER, TAMMY PARKHILL, and SUSAN CHRISTNER, Plaintiffs, v. ILLINOIS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, ILLINOIS DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES, ILLINOIS DEPT. OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, ILLINOIS DEPT. OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, ILLINOIS DEPT. OF CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, and JAY R. PRITZKER, in his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois

ALVIN BOONE, BRANDON HESTER, TAMMY PARKHILL, and SUSAN CHRISTNER, Plaintiffs,
v.
ILLINOIS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, ILLINOIS DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES, ILLINOIS DEPT. OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, ILLINOIS DEPT. OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, ILLINOIS DEPT. OF CENTRAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, and JAY R. PRITZKER, in his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Defendants.

No. 21-cv-3229-JES-JEH

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois

February 3, 2023

ORDER AND OPINION

JAMES E. SHADID, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is now before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 28), the Court's November 18, 2022 Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II, but not Counts III, IV, and V, of Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Plaintiffs have filed a brief response (Doc. 31), failing to address all of Defendants' arguments. Notwithstanding, for the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.

Procedural history

The relevant facts are thoroughly discussed in the Court's prior order and are only summarily recounted here. The various Plaintiffs are employed by State agencies and work in congregational facilities. Plaintiffs allege that pursuant to the Defendant Governor's executive orders, the Defendant employers require that they be vaccinated against COVID-19 and

1

submit to COVID-19 testing, in violation of their Constitutional rights and state statute.

In Counts III, IV, and V, Plaintiffs challenge the June 1, 2022 Public Act 102-667 Amendment (“Amendment”) to the Illinois HealthCare Right of Conscience Act (“HCRCA”), 745 ILCS 70/1 et seq. The Amendment provides:

VIOLATIONS RELATED TO COVID-19 REQUIREMENTS

It is not a violation of this Act for any person or public official, or for any public or private association, agency corporation, entity, institution, or employer, to take any measures or impose any requirements, including, but not limited to, any measures or requirements that involve provision of services by a physician or health care personnel, intended to prevent contraction or transmission of COVID- 19 or any pathogens that result in COVID-19 or any of its subsequent iterations. It is not a violation of this Act to enforce such measures or requirements. This Section is a declaration of existing law and shall not be construed as a new enactment. Accordingly, this Section shall apply to all actions commenced or pending on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 102nd General Assembly Nothing in this Section is intended to affect any right or remedy under federal law.

745 ILCS 70/13.5 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs assert that as the Amendment exempts Covid mitigation measures from HCRCA protections, it violates the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“IRFRA”), the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Illinois constitution, and Equal Protection under the U.S. Constitution and Illinois constitution. Plaintiffs request that the Court enjoin enforcement of the HCRCA Amendment.

Defendants respond, generally, that the Court lacks the authority to enjoin enforcement of the Amendment. Defendants advance a two-fold argument; that if the Amendment is viewed as a “repeal” of the HCRCA, this federal court has no authority to intervene in a state legislature's repeal of its laws. Secondly, if the Amendment is construed as an “interpretive aid,” as the Court has viewed it in its previous Order, the Amendment has no practical effect. Defendants assert that the Amendment shows an intent not to provide Covid-related protection. That it is merely the absence of law as it not a “prohibition, directive, or command. It imposes no penalties. It

2

requires no actions. It faults no omissions. In short, it has no application to Plaintiffs or any other person.” (Doc. 29 at 4).

Defendants assert, generally, that Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently plead the Count III, and IV, IRFRA and free exercise claims. The IRFRA and free exercise prohibit a government substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, unless in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and where it is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. 775 ILCS 35/15; St. John's United Church of Christ v. City of Chicago, 502 F.3d 616, 631 (7th Cir. 2007). Defendants assert both that Plaintiffs have not pled sufficient facts in support; and that the Amendment, as a mere absence of a law, cannot burden religious belief.

Defendants further assert that it was legal error for the Court to allow the Count V equal protection claim to proceed after finding the Amendment survived rational basis scrutiny. Defendants claim that, as this is a question of law which the Court decided, Count V should have been dismissed. (Doc. 29 at 10-11). In addition, Defendants assert the not particularly well-developed argument that Plaintiffs would not benefit even if the Amendment were found unconstitutional. This is so, as in the face of such a finding, the Illinois Legislature could “equalize down,” by denying conscientious objection to all, thus alleviating any claimed inequity.

Lastly, Defendants request oral argument to address the Court's prior comment that there was some uncertainty as to whether Plaintiffs claimed that the Amendment partially repealed the HCRCA. This uncertainty is over, however, as Plaintiffs have affirmatively stated in their response that such a claim does not “make[] any sense.” (Doc. 31 at 3). Still, Defendants claim oral argument is necessary to generally “provide much needed clarity regarding the scope of Plaintiffs' claims, so that they can be effectively understood and adjudicated.” (Doc. 29 at 12).

3

While Plaintiffs assert that the Amendment merely clarifies the HCRCA, they do not address Defendants' claims that this clarification represents an absence of a law and is without substantive effect. Furthermore, Plaintiffs completely fail to address Defendants' equal protection argument. Plaintiffs do little more than stand by the second amended complaint, claiming that they have sufficiently pled that the Amendment excludes them from HCRCA protection in violation of state law and constitutional safeguards. They further argue that Defendants have failed to identify “manifest errors of law or fact” to support a motion to reconsider, and are merely reasserting previously rejected arguments.

The Court notes that, although Plaintiff Quisenberry and Defendant Illinois Department of Public Health were dismissed in the Court's prior Order, they continue to be identified in the caption of Plaintiffs' response. This Order does not address either of these former parties.

STANDARD

Defendants assert their Motion to Reconsider under Fed R. Civ. Pro. 54(b), which “governs non-final orders and permits revision at any time prior to the entry of judgment . . . Under Rule 54(b), the Court may exercise its inherent authority to reconsider or revise its interlocutory orders.” United States for use & benefit of Sustainable Modular Mgmt., Inc. v. Custom Mech. Sys., Corp., No. 16-02915, 2017 WL 4405050, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 4, 2017) (internal citations omitted). “Motions to reconsider serve a limited function, to be used ‘where the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.'” Davis v. Carmel Clay Sch., 286 F.R.D. 411, 412 (S.D. Ind. 2012) (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc, 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). “Motions to reconsider filed pursuant to Rule 54(b) or Rule 59(e) are for the purpose of correcting manifest

4

errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence not available at the time of briefing, and a motion to reconsider an order under Rule 54(b) is judged by largely the same standard as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e).” Tucker v. Holding, No. 14-1698, 2016 WL 7100652, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 6, 2016). “A court may grant a motion to reconsider where a movant demonstrates a manifest error of law or fact; however, a motion to reconsider is not an occasion to make new arguments.” Katz-Crank v. Haskett, No. 13-00159, 2014 WL 3507298, at *2 (S.D. Ind. July 14, 2014).

ANALYSIS

The HCRCA, the Amendment to which is the source of this controversy, was originally enacted on September 13, 1977. The purpose of the HCRCA was to prevent employers discriminating against healthcare workers who refused to provide certain services due to reservations of conscience, such as pharmacists opposed to dispensing birth control or the Plan B “morning after” pill, 745 ILCS 70/5, Menges v. Blagojevich, 451 F.Supp.2d 992, 999-1000 (C.D. Ill. 2006); or participating in abortion. Nat'l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Rauner, No.16-50310, 2017 WL 11570803 at *1 (N.D. Ill. July 19, 2017) (citing 745 ILCS 70/2). See Vandersand v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 525 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1056-57 (C.D. Ill. July 31, 2007) (noting the HCRCA shields health care providers who refuse to provide legal treatment options to which they had conscience-based objections from civil liability or professional discipline.).

In June 2022, the HCRCA was amended by Public Act 102-667 to exclude protection for Covid-related conscientious objection. Plaintiffs assert that the Amendment's exclusion violates state law, the state constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. Defendants dispute this, asserting that Plaintiffs are asking the Court to give them a statutory right to resist Covid

5

mitigation where the Legislature has specifically declined to do so. (Doc. 29 at 2-3). Defendants assert that the Illinois Legislature clearly intended to exclude Covid-related protections when it enacted the Amendment, and...