Carl Gamble v. State of Illinois

ORDER

KUBASIAK, J. This cause coming on for hearing on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, and this Court being fully advised in the premises.

THE COURT DOES FIND that the Court of Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear these kinds of cases, and that this claim is barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claimant’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Parties to bear their own costs.

OPINION

This matter is before the Court on Claimant’s Petition for Rehearing of the dismissal order of February 3, 2014.

This claim arises out of the fact that the Respondent, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (“IDNR”), did not promote Claimant, Carl Gamble, in his position of employment with the IDNR. Claimant has worked for Respondent as a Conservation Police Officer since 1990.

In January 2009, Claimant applied for a promotion to the position of Sergeant in the IDNR, but was subsequently denied the promotion. Claimant alleges that his application was denied on the grounds of racial discrimination. Claimant supports this by indicating that his desired position was instead filled by a white applicant who had significantly less work experience. Claimant brings this suit for racial discrimination as a violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”), 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq.

In order to seek redress pursuant to the IHRA, a claimant must first seek review by the Director of the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) 755 ILCS 7A-102 (C). Claimant [*171] complied with this requirement, and on August 4, 2010, the IDHR informed him that his claim had been dismissed. The notice of dismissal also indicated that the Claimant had two options following the dismissal: seek review before the Illinois Human Rights Commission, or file a complaint in the appropriate circuit court. In relevant part, 7A-102 (C) of the IHRA states:

“(3) If the Director determines that there is no substantial evidence, the charge shall be dismissed by order of the Director and the Director shall give the complainant notice of his or her right to seek review of the dismissal order before the Commission or commence a civil action in the appropriate circuit court. If the complainant chooses to have the Human Rights Commission review the dismissal order, he or she shall file a request for review with the Commission within 90 days after receipt of the Director’s notice. If the complainant chooses to file a request for review with the Commission, he or she may not later commence a civil action in a circuit court. If the complainant chooses to commence a civil action in a circuit court, he or she must do so within 90 days after receipt of the Director’s notice.”

Claimant timely filed a complaint in Madison County Circuit Court on November 3, 2010. Claimant relies on the language in this section, which states that he may bring a civil action “in circuit court.” The Madison County Circuit Court thereafter dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice, for refiling in the Illinois Court of Claims.

The Madison County Circuit Court reasoned that under the State Lawsuit Immunity Act (“Immunity Act”), 745 ILCS 5/1 et seq., the State cannot be sued for violations of the IHRA in circuit court because it had not waived sovereign immunity. Gamble v. Dep’t. of Nat’l Res., 10- L-1127 (3rd Cir. 2012). The Immunity Act provides that, “Except as provided in the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act, the Court of Claims Act, the State Officials and Employees Ethics Act, and Section 1.5 of this Act, the State of Illinois shall not be made a defendant or party in any court.” 745 ILCS 5/1 (1).

Claimant thereafter refiled his complaint in the Court of Claims on April 20, 2012, alleging jurisdiction in this Court exists pursuant to 705 ILCS 505/8(a), as the IHRA is “any law of the State of Illinois.” This section provides:

“The court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the following matters … All claims against the State founded upon any law of the State of Illinois or upon any regulation adopted thereunder by an executive or administrative officer or agency; provided, however, the court shall not have jurisdiction … (ii) to review administrative decisions for which a statute provides that review shall be in the circuit or appellate court.”

705 ILCS 505/8(a).

It is the exception contained in (ii) of section 8(a) above that precludes this matter from being heard by this Court. The IHRA is not governed by the Administrative Review Law since it does not incorporate it by “express reference.” 735 ILCS 5/3-102. Instead, the IHRA handles [*172] administrative review independently, by permitting a party in disagreement with the Director’s decision to bring the dispute before the Commission or (as stated) the circuit court.

One option available to Claimant in seeking review of the Director’s decision would be to go to the Commission. This ultimately could end with Claimant seeking review in an appellate court. 775 ILCS 5/8-111(B)(1) states that a party may seek review of a final order of the Commission by filing a petition for review in the appellate court within 35 days of the decision.

This is exactly the type of situation that the Court of Claims Act 8(a) jurisdiction was drafted to limit. Thus, the Court of Claims does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.

The Madison County Circuit Court arrived at a contrary conclusion by in essence substituting the Court of Claims for the statutory reference to the “appropriate circuit court.” The Madison County Circuit Court further reasoned that in order to achieve a harmonious reading between the Immunity Act and the IHRA, which permits employees to bring IHRA suits in a circuit court, the more specific language in the Immunity Act must be given precedence over the more general waiver language in the IHRA. Gamble, 10-L-1127 at 2; Harris v. State of Illinois, Dep’t. of Corr., 753 F.Supp. 2d 734, 741 (ND. Ill. 2010). However, since appellate court review of the IDHR Director’s decision is available pursuant to 775 ILCS 5/8-111 of the IHRA, the Court of Claims logically does not have jurisdiction to hear this case. 705 ILCS 505/8(a)(ii).

The Madison County Circuit Court relies heavily on the harmonious interpretation test set forth in the Harris decision. However, if a review of the Director’s decision of Claimant’s alleged IHRA violation is prohibited under the Court of Claims Act, then the most harmonious reading of the IHRA and Immunity Act would be to defer to the clear language of the IHRA, which directs claimants to the appropriate circuit court, as opposed to the Court of Claims, which lacks jurisdiction to review such an administrative decision by the very act that created the Court of Claims. Id.

In summary we find that that Court of Claims Act restricts our jurisdiction to review administrative decisions issued under the IHRA.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Claimant’s Petition for Rehearing is denied and the dismissal Order of February 3, 2014 shall stand.