Bartlow v. Costigan
974 N.E.2d 937
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Act creates criteria to determine if construction workers are employees or independent contractors (construction-industry focus).
- Plaintiffs challenge the Act as facially unconstitutional and seek declaratory judgment and injunctive relief.
- Department of Labor investigatory powers under the Act can lead to penalties and sanctions, with potential court actions to enforce violations.
- Circuit court granted summary judgment for the Department; plaintiffs appealed after TRO reversal but on remand proceeded via cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Court adopts a de novo review of constitutional challenges and holds the Act is not facially unconstitutional and can be reasonably interpreted to provide due process protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Act facially constitutional under due process and equal protection? | Bartlow argues facial invalidity. | Costigan defends constitutionality. | Yes, facially constitutional under due process and equal protection. |
| Is the Act an improper delegation of legislative power or too vague? | Bartlow claims vague standards or improper delegation. | Department asserts adequate guidance and permissible delegation. | Not unconstitutionally vague or improperly delegated. |
| Does the Act violate special legislation or equal protection by targeting construction workers? | Bartlow claims anomalous treatment. | Act rationally related to preventing misclassification. | Not violative of special legislation or equal protection. |
| Does procedural due process require adjudicatory hearing before penalties? | Due process requires prior hearing and confrontation of evidence. | Act provides investigative role with court process to determine penalties; informal hearing available; no automatic adjudication by Department. | Procedural safeguards adequate under interpretation that Department is investigative until court proceeding. |
Key Cases Cited
- East St. Louis Federation of Teachers, Local 1220 v. East St. Louis School District No. 189 Financial Oversight Panel, 178 Ill. 2d 399 (1997) (due process safeguards for a removal-like action; not facially unconstitutional where notice/hearing possible)
- World Painting Co. v. Costigan, 2012 IL App (4th) 110869 (4th Dist. 2012) (investigative role without adjudicatory findings; due process not implicated when no rights adjudicated)
- In re Marriage of Beyer, 324 Ill. App. 3d 305 (2001) (due process and standards for procedural adequacy)
- People v. Gale, 376 Ill. App. 3d 344 (2007) (equal protection analysis; rational basis review)
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (1955) (legislature may address select field with remedies; rational basis)