Skip to main content

Williams v. Southern Illinois Riverboat/Casino Cruises, Inc.

S.D. Ill.January 1, 2008No. Case 06-cv-664-JPGCited 2 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
J. Phil Gilbert
Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
440 Civil rights other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant Eberhart on all three counts (§1983 false arrest, state law false arrest, and malicious prosecution), finding probable cause existed for the arrest and that Eberhart was entitled to qualified immunity.

What This Ruling Means

# Williams v. Southern Illinois Riverboat/Casino Cruises, Inc. **What Happened** Williams filed a lawsuit against Southern Illinois Riverboat/Casino Cruises, Inc. and an individual named Eberhart, claiming wrongful termination. The case also involved accusations of false arrest and malicious prosecution—meaning Williams believed he was arrested without proper legal justification and that this was done in bad faith. **What the Court Decided** The court sided completely with the casino and Eberhart. The judge found that there was sufficient legal basis (probable cause) for the arrest that occurred. The court also ruled that Eberhart was protected from the lawsuit because he was acting in an official capacity. This meant the lawsuit was dismissed without going to trial, and Williams received no damages or compensation. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows that employees can face significant obstacles when suing employers or company officials over arrests. When authorities have probable cause to arrest someone, they generally cannot be held legally responsible, even if the arrest led to job loss. Workers should understand that proving wrongful termination in situations involving arrests requires strong evidence that goes beyond mere disagreement about what happened.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.