November 1, 2017
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 15 CV 8736 - Joan
B. Gottschall, Judge.
Manion, Kanne, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
2013, Saravdeep Mann attacked his coworker, Martyn Baylay,
with a bronze hotel decoration. The two men, members of a
flight crew employed by Etihad Airways, were at a Chicago
hotel for the night on a layover.
sued Etihad, Mann, and the hotel's corporate entities in
federal district court. The court dismissed all of
Baylay's claims against Etihad on the basis that the
claims should be heard by the Illinois Workers'
Compensation Commission instead. The court entered an order
allowing an immediate appeal of that decision, which Baylay
filed on December 9, 2016 (No. 16-4113). A few months later,
the district court dismissed Baylay's remaining claims.
It reasoned that it had no original jurisdiction over the
claims and declined to exercise its supplemental
jurisdiction. Baylay filed his notice of appeal of that
decision on May 5, 2017 (No. 17-1958). The appeals have been
consolidated and are before us now. We affirm the dismissal
of Baylay's claims.
following facts are drawn from Baylay's second amended
complaint. See Veseley v. Armslist LLC, 762 F.3d
661, 664-65 (7th Cir. 2014) (when reviewing a 12(b)(6)
motion, we accept the facts in the complaint as true);
see also Sykes v. Cook Cty. Circuit Court Prob.
Div., 837 F.3d 736, 739 (7th Cir. 2016) (when reviewing
a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, we
accept the facts in the complaint as true).
Airways is a public joint stock company established by Emiri
Decree and incorporated in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, United
Arab Emirates. Martyn Baylay, a British citizen, worked as a
pilot for Etihad in 2013.
October, Etihad assigned Baylay to a flight crew that also
included Saravdeep Mann. The crewmembers flew from Abu Dhabi
to Chicago. After arrival, Etihad arranged for the
crewmembers' transportation to The Westin on Michigan
Avenue in Chicago for an overnight layover. Etihad paid for
crewmembers drank pre-dinner cocktails together that night,
where Mann consumed a significant amount. It appeared to
Baylay that he had imbibed before meeting the group, too. At
dinner, Mann downed even more alcohol and then expressed
anti-American and anti-British views while emphasizing his
distaste for the British by placing his hands around
Baylay's throat. Mann left the restaurant without paying
his bill and without his coat. The crewmembers settled
Mann's bill, and Baylay offered to take Mann's coat
and return it the next day.
the hotel, Baylay heard a knock on the door of his hotel room
and saw Mann standing outside his room. Thinking Mann was
there to apologize for his earlier actions and collect his
coat, Baylay opened the door. Mann struck him on the head and
leg with a bronze hotel decoration. During the attack, Mann
threatened Baylay, saying, "I'm going to kill you.
You Peking British bastard." Baylay managed to escape,
took the elevator to the lobby of the hotel, and was then
transported to Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Mann was
arrested and transported to the Chicago Police Department.
left the United States with Etihad's help after posting
bond on October 14. He never returned, criminally violating
filed the second amended complaint on February 25, 2016, in
federal district court. He sued Mann; Etihad Airways; 909
North Michigan Avenue Corporation and LHO Michigan Avenue
Freezeout, LLC-the Westin's corporate entities; and
United Security Services, Inc.-the company that provided
security for the Westin at the time of the incident. United
Security Services was later voluntarily dismissed from the
Etihad, Baylay brought state-law claims of negligent
retention, negligence, and willful and wanton conduct.
Against Mann, he brought state-law claims of negligence and
willful and wanton conduct. And against the Westin's
corporate entities, Baylay brought a state-law claim of
March 2016, Etihad filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss
Baylay's claims against it. The district court granted
the motion, concluding that Baylay's state-law claims
against his employer were barred by the exclusivity
provisions of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act
("the IWCA"). If Baylay wanted to pursue claims
against his employer arising from the incident with Mann, he
needed to do so in front of the Illinois Workers'
Compensation Commission ("the Commission"). The
court entered ...