2011 IL App (1st) 100797
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Alexander alleged harassment and wrongful termination at 1212 Restaurant Group in Chicago based on perceived sexual orientation; complaints were filed with the Chicago Commission on Human Relations (Commission) in 2000, hearing held 2005, resulting in a hostile environment finding and damages; 1212, Scalise, and Schwab appealed; circuit court affirmed the Commission’s findings and awards; on appeal the primary legal dispute was whether the Chicago Human Rights Ordinance protects against hostile environment claims and whether the evidence supported liability for Scalise and Schwab as principals; witnesses, including Sheridan and Daniels, corroborated extensive offensive comments directed at Alexander; the Commission awarded emotional damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees; the appellate court affirmed substantial portions of the award, noting deference to agency findings and the evidentiary support for harassment and emotional distress; the decision discusses standards of review for agency actions and the breadth of the ordinance and its regulations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Chicago Human Rights Ordinance extend to hostile environment claims? | Alexander protected under ordinance; harassment based on perceived sexual orientation. | Ordinance applies only to adverse employment actions; Alexander not in a protected class. | Yes; ordinance covers harassment and hostile environment based on protected status. |
| Are Scalise and Schwab liable for harassment as individuals despite 1212's status as employer? | Scalise/Schwab liable for creating hostile environment. | Only 1212 liable as employer; scalise's and schwab's actions cannot be imputed. | Scalise personally liable for creating hostile environment; agency acknowledged individual responsibility. |
| Did the Commission shift the burden of proof in assessing the hostile environment claim? | No improper burden shifting. | Burden shifted via misinterpretation of missing diary entries and witness absence. | No reversible error in burden allocation; credibility and evidence weighed by the Commission. |
| Were the damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees properly awarded? | Damages appropriate given egregious harassment; fees reasonable. | Damages and fees excessive/arbitrary; punitive award may exceed actual harm. | Damages and punitive damages upheld; attorney fees reduced 15% for unsuccessful wrongful termination claim; overall award affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. City of Chicago Human Rights Comm'n, 389 Ill.App.3d 45 (2009) (review of agency decisions; deferential standard when fact-bound)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill.2d 380 (2001) (mixed questions of law and fact; deference to agency expertise)
- Godinez v. Sullivan-Lackey, 352 Ill.App.3d 87 (2004) (facts reviewed for reasonableness; not reweighing credibility on appeal)
- Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. v. Rockford School District No. 205, 216 Ill.2d 455 (2005) (mixed questions of law and fact; deference; standard of review)
- Slovinski v. Elliott, 237 Ill.2d 51 (2010) (punitive damages; relation to actual damages; abuse of discretion standard)
- Page v. City of Chicago, 299 Ill.App.3d 450 (1998) (purpose and standard for punitive damages; factors like egregiousness and intent)