1212 Restaurant Group v. Alexander
2011 IL App (1st) 100797
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Alexander and Daniels formed a venture to build 1212 Restaurant; Scalise financed and held majority, with Alexander employed as restaurant creative director/front house manager.
- Alexander was terminated on June 12, 2000; he had sustained a serious foot injury during build-out and wore a protective shoe.
- Alexander alleged harassment based on perceived sexual orientation; the Chicago Commission on Human Relations held he suffered harassment creating a hostile environment, though not terminated for orientation.
- Hearing (conducted 2005) relied on testimony from Alexander and witnesses describing vulgar, repeated comments and messages over approximately a year.
- Commission awarded Alexander emotional damages ($35,000), punitive damages ($140,000), and attorney fees/costs ($84,473.06); circuit court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ordinance encompasses hostile environment claims | Alexander’s perceived orientation protected; harassment claim valid. | Ordinance covers actions by employers/adverse actions, not hostile environment. | Ordinance covers hostile environment claims. |
| Whether Alexander had standing as a non-protected class member | Protection extends to perceived orientation; standing valid. | Alexander not a member of protected class; lacks standing. | Standing found through perceived orientation; protected class applies. |
| Whether Scalise can be personally liable for harassment | Scalise created/fostered hostile environment; personally liable. | Employer is 1212; Scalise’s liability for his own actions or inactions is disputed. | Scalise personally liable for his actions; not solely vicarious liability. |
| Whether the Commission properly allocated burden of proof and credibility | Credibility determinations support harassment finding. | Burden and credibility misapplied; testimony flawed. | Credibility and burden properly applied; findings upheld. |
| Whether damages and fees awards were properly determined | Damages/punitive/arbitration fees warranted given harassment severity. | Awards excessive or improperly calculated. | Damages and attorney-fee/punitive awards upheld on review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. City of Chicago Human Rights Comm’n, 389 Ill. App. 3d 45 (2009) (deferential review of agency decisions)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (2001) (mixed questions reviewed for weight of the evidence)
- Godinez v. Sullivan-Lackey, 352 Ill. App. 3d 87 (2004) (appellate review of agency findings and credibility)
- Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. v. Rockford School District No. 205, 216 Ill. 2d 455 (2005) (mixed questions; deference to agency expertise)
- Slovinski v. Elliot, 237 Ill. 2d 51 (2010) (punitive damages cap relative to actual damages; factors for reprehensibility)