Overview

The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of the City of Markham and Fire Chief Anthony Mazziotta in a civil rights action brought by former firefighter Vairrun Strickland. Strickland v. City of Markham, 2026 WL 1649647 (7th Cir. 2026). The court held that most of Strickland’s claims were barred by claim preclusion, but that his Title VII claims could not be precluded by an unreviewed state administrative decision.

The decision highlights that state administrative proceedings and state-court judgments are not always treated the same for preclusion purposes in later federal litigation. In particular, the court applied University of Tennessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788 (1986), to distinguish Title VII claims from § 1983 and state-law claims.

Background

Strickland worked as a firefighter for the City of Markham Fire Department. In 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission interviewed him in connection with discrimination claims brought by a former firefighter. Strickland alleged that, after that interview, Chief Mazziotta and the Department retaliated against him by singling him out for discipline and denying him a promotion.

In January 2021, the Department brought administrative charges against Strickland. Following hearings before the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, the Board terminated Strickland’s employment in April 2021 after finding that he had lied to detectives during an arson investigation and had put Department employees at risk by reporting to work while infected with COVID-19.

Strickland then filed a state-court action challenging 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. The Board did so and again discharged Strickland. After the Board issued its amended decision, Strickland voluntarily dismissed the state-court action and did not otherwise pursue direct judicial review of the amended administrative decision.

While those proceedings were unfolding, Strickland filed a federal lawsuit against the City and Chief Mazziotta, alleging:

• race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, an equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and
• a claim under the Illinois State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, 5 ILCS 430/1 et seq.

The district court converted the defendants’ motions to dismiss into summary judgment motions and entered judgment for the defendants on all claims, holding that the federal action was barred by claim preclusion.

The Seventh Circuit’s Decision

The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The panel first explained that federal preclusion law distinguishes between state-court judgments and unreviewed state administrative decisions. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, federal courts generally give a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect it would receive in that state’s courts. But under Elliott, unreviewed state administrative proceedings do not have preclusive effect on Title VII claims.

That distinction was dispositive as to Strickland’s Title VII claims. The panel held that the Board’s administrative decision, standing alone, could not preclude those claims. The court also agreed that Strickland’s voluntary dismissal of the state-court administrative review action did not itself have preclusive effect under Illinois law. Because the Board decision remained effectively unreviewed for purposes of Elliott, the court vacated the judgment on the Title VII claims and remanded for further proceedings.

The court reached a different conclusion on Strickland’s § 1983 and state law claims. Elliott permits unreviewed state administrative proceedings to have preclusive effect on § 1983 claims when the agency acted in a judicial capacity and the state’s courts would give the decision preclusive effect. Applying Illinois claim preclusion principles, the panel held that the Board’s decision barred those claims.

The panel rejected Strickland’s argument that there was no identity of cause of action because the administrative proceeding concerned his termination while the federal case asserted discrimination, retaliation, and equal protection theories. Illinois applies a transactional test, under which different legal theories can involve the same cause of action if they arise from the same group of operative facts. The court concluded that both proceedings arose from the facts surrounding Strickland’s termination.

The court also held that Strickland had a full and fair opportunity to litigate. Although the Board could not adjudicate the precise civil rights claims asserted in federal court, the panel held:

• Strickland could have raised the thrust of his discrimination and retaliation allegations as defenses in the administrative proceeding and,
• at minimum, could have joined his civil rights claims with a request for judicial review of the administrative decision.

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the § 1983 and state law claims, while remanding only the Title VII claims.

Practical Takeaways

• Preclusion analysis can differ by claim. A state administrative decision that may preclude § 1983 or state law claims will not necessarily preclude Title VII claims unless the administrative decision has been reviewed in state court and resulted in a judgment entitled to full faith and credit.
• Unreviewed administrative decisions remain significant. Even where Title VII claims survive, findings and judgments from adjudicatory administrative proceedings may still bar related § 1983 and state law claims when state law would give the administrative decision preclusive effect.
• Claim preclusion focuses on the underlying transaction, not the label attached to the theory of recovery. Under Illinois law, a later civil rights claim may share an identity of cause of action with an administrative termination proceeding if both arise from the same operative facts.
• Employees challenging disciplinary decisions should preserve all available avenues of review. The decision underscores the risk of allowing an administrative decision to become final without pursuing judicial review or joining related claims where Illinois procedure permits doing so.
• For municipalities and public officials, the decision reinforces the importance of developing a complete administrative record. Where the administrative process is adjudicatory and the employee has a full and fair opportunity to litigate, that record can play a central role in later federal civil rights litigation.

For questions about civil rights litigation involving public employees or labor and employment matters affecting municipalities, please contact Anthony G. Becknek, Colleen M. Shannon, or another member of Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins’ Municipal Law Practice Group.

Authored By: