A legal battle over alleged workplace discrimination has culminated in a court decision that underscores the complexities of settlement agreements and their enforceability. Rashun Singleton, representing herself, filed a complaint with the Illinois Human Rights Commission against AMITA Health/Advent Health, alleging discrimination and retaliation during her employment. This complaint was dismissed on July 25, 2024, following an order from the Appellate Court of Illinois.
Singleton's journey through the legal system began on June 16, 2017, when she sued AMITA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. She claimed that her termination in January 2017 was due to discrimination based on disability, gender, and sexual orientation. A federal magistrate judge facilitated a settlement conference on April 16, 2018, where it was determined that both parties had entered into a binding settlement agreement. However, Singleton later expressed dissatisfaction with this agreement and refused to sign the proposed documents prepared by AMITA.
The federal magistrate judge recommended enforcing the settlement agreement despite Singleton's objections. The district court adopted this recommendation on December 10, 2018. Singleton attempted to challenge this decision by filing a motion to reconsider and subsequently appealing to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s decision, affirming that an enforceable agreement existed between Singleton and AMITA.
Despite these rulings, Singleton filed another complaint against AMITA with the Illinois Human Rights Commission on December 7, 2018. This new complaint reiterated her claims of discrimination and retaliation but added allegations related to administrative charges she had filed with various bodies including the EEOC. In response, AMITA moved to dismiss this state-level complaint based on the previously settled federal case.
The Commission’s administrative law judge (ALJ) reviewed the case and found that Singleton had indeed agreed to withdraw all administrative charges as part of her settlement with AMITA. The ALJ recommended dismissing Singleton’s complaint with prejudice—a recommendation that was later adopted by a panel of the Commission on November 17, 2021.
Singleton continued to argue against these decisions, claiming she did not understand or willingly agree to the terms of the settlement. However, her arguments were consistently rejected at multiple levels of judicial review. Ultimately, Justice Hoffman delivered a judgment affirming that collateral estoppel barred further litigation on issues already decided by federal courts.
Singleton sought relief from multiple courts but faced consistent rulings against her claims due to prior settlements deemed valid and enforceable by higher courts. This outcome highlights how initial settlements can have far-reaching implications across different jurisdictions and legal forums.
The Case ID is No. ALS-18-0400.