AUGUSTINE HARDING, Claimant, v. CARMEN CORTESE, GIOVANNI FULGENZI, and the STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant alleged gender discrimination in hiring for a Highway Maintainer/Snowbird position. The court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the Human Rights Act vests exclusive jurisdiction in the circuit court, not the Court of Claims.
Statutes cited: 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1); 775 ILCS 5/2-102(a); 775 ILCS 5/2-101(B)(1)(c); 775 ILCS 5/1-103(Q); 775 ILCS 5/8-111(D); 775 ILCS 5/7A-102(A)(C); 775 ILCS 5/7A-102(D)(2)(3); 775 ILCS 5/8-111(A)(1)
Cases cited: Redwood v. Lierman, 331 Ill.App.3d 1073, 1076, 772 N.E.2d 803, 808 (4th Dist. 2002); Prodromos v. Poulos, 202 Ill.App.3d 1024, 1028, 560 N.E.2d 942, 946 (1st Dist. 1990)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Motion to Dismiss-Standard of Review- A motion to dismiss admits all wellpleaded facts in the complaint together with all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts in the non-moving parties favor, and it raises other defects or defenses that bar the claim.
- Jurisdiction-Human Rights Act- A plain reading of the Human Rights Act reveals that the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over the subject of an alleged civil rights violation arising under the Act.
ORDER
KUBASIAK, J.
THIS MATTER coming to be heard on the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(1), and it appearing to the Court that Claimant has received due notice and the Court being fully advised in the premises, THE COURT FINDS:
BACKGROUND
On or about July 2006, the Claimant, Augustine Harding, was employed by the Illinois Department of Transportation as a seasonal employee.
On or about October 2008, the Claimant submitted to Illinois Department of Transportation an application for a position as Highway Maintainer/Snowbird.
Claimant alleges she possessed more employment seniority than three of six male employees at the time of her application.
Claimant was not selected for the position of Highway Maintainer/Snowbird.
Claimant
alleges she was not selected for said position on the basis of her gender.
Claimant filed a charge of a civil rights violation with the Illinois Department of Human Rights on October 20, 2008.
The Illinois Department of Human Rights issued its investigation report on December 18, 2009.
Claimant filed her complaint in the Court of Claims on March 12, 2010.
STANDARD
A Section 2-619 motion to dismiss admits all well-pleaded facts in the complaint together with all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts in the plaintiff’s favor, and it raises other defects or defenses that bar the claim.
Redwood v. Lierman, 331 Ill.App.3d 1073, 1076, 772 N.E.2d 803, 808 (4th Dist. 2002); 735 ILCS 5/2-619.
The court must consider whether the defendant presents facts constituting an affirmative defense defeating the plaintiff’s claim.
Prodromos v. Poulos, 202 Ill.App.3d 1024, 1028, 560 N.E.2d 942, 946 (1st Dist. 1990).
OPINION
The Human Right Act provides that “[i]t is a civil rights violation…for any employer to refuse to hire…or to act with respect to recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of [*226] employment,… tenure or terms, privileges or conditions of employment on the basis of unlawful discrimination or citizenship status.” 775 ILS 5/2-102(a).
“Employer” includes “[t]he State and any political subdivision, municipal corporation or other governmental unit or agency.” 775 ILCS 5/2-101(B)(1)(c).
“Unlawful discrimination” means discrimination against a person because of his or her, inter alia, sex. 775 ILCS 5/1-103(Q).
Claimant alleges her employer, Illinois Department of Transportation, refused to recall or select her for the position of Highway Maintainer/Snowbird on the basis of her sex.
As
such, Claimant alleges a civil rights violation arising under the Human Rights Act.
Pursuant to the Human Rights Act, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, no court of this state shall have jurisdiction over the subject of an alleged civil rights violation other than as set forth in this Act.” 775 ILCS 5/8-111(D).
The Human Rights Act sets forth that after a proper charge of a civil rights violation has been filed with the Department of Human Rights, the Department shall conduct an investigation and issue its investigation report. 775 ILCS 5/7A-102(A)(C).
Upon review of the report by the Director of the Department, the Director shall determine whether there is substantial evidence that a civil rights violation was committed and notify the complainant of his or her right to commence a civil action related to any substantiated or unsubstantiated charge in the “appropriate circuit court,” which is the “circuit court” in the county in which the civil rights violation was allegedly committed.
5/7A-102(D)(2)(3); 5/8-111(A)(1).
A plain reading of the Human Rights Act reveals that the Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over the subject of an alleged civil rights violation arising under the Act.
Exclusive jurisdiction over the subject of an alleged civil rights violation is conferred upon the circuit court by virtue of section 5/8-111(D) of the Human Rights Act and the requirements set forth in the act governing when and wherein to file a civil action. ILCS 5/8-111(D).
Herein, Claimant filed a charge of a civil rights violation with the Illinois Department of Human Rights on October 20, 2008, related to her allegations raised in her complaint.
The Illinois Department of Human Rights issued its investigation report on December 18, 2009.
Upon receiving notice of her right to commence a civil action, Claimant should have commenced her action in the appropriate circuit court consistent with the Human Rights Act.
Accordingly, by filing her complaint in the Court of Claims, Claimant has chosen a forum without jurisdiction to entertain her claim.
Claimant’s claim must be dismissed. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The motion of the Respondent is GRANTED and the claim herein is DISMISSED with prejudice.