Bremen Community High School District No. 228 v. The Cook County Comm'n on Human Rights, 981 N.E.2d 369

Dr. Richard Mitchell was hired as Bremen Community High School District No. 228 superintendent in 2004 and terminated in 2006.
Mitchell filed a complaint with the Cook County Commission on Human Rights in 2006 alleging employment termination due to sexual orientation under the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance.
Plaintiffs (the Board, Gleason, and Bremen District) moved to dismiss, arguing the Commission lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a school district/official.
The Commission denied the motion to dismiss; an investigation in 2010 found substantial evidence of violations; the matter remained pending before the Commission.
In 2011, the circuit court dismissed the mandamus/prohibition/injunction complaint with prejudice under Section 2-615, and denied leave to amend; plaintiffs appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commission had jurisdiction over Mitchell's complaint.	Gleason/Board argued home-rule limits barred jurisdiction.	Mitchell's complaint falls within Cook County’s concurrent jurisdiction under the Ordinance.	Yes; the Commission had jurisdiction.
Whether mandamus was the proper remedy to challenge the Commission's jurisdiction.	Mandamus is appropriate to compel dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.	Mandamus is improper; review is through ordinary channels and not a de novo challenge.	No; mandamus not appropriate.
Whether plaintiffs fit within the Ordinance’s definition of employer to be subject to its protections.	Plaintiffs are not employers under §42-31 because they are state/municipal agencies.	School districts are employers under the Ordinance and not excluded by the statutory definitions.	Plaintiffs not excluded; they are employers under the Ordinance.
Whether the County’s home-rule powers preempt state authority in this context.	State plenary power over schools preempts Cook County regulation.	No preemption shown; concurrent jurisdiction exists and is proper.	No preemption; concurrent authority exists.
What is the proper relationship between the Cook County Ordinance and the Illinois Human Rights Act.	Act preempts local regulation; Ordinance cannot apply to school district.	Act provides concurrent jurisdiction; Ordinance can operate alongside the Act.	Concurrent jurisdiction; Ordinance properly applies.

Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (Ill. 2006) (standard for section 2-615 dismissal; facial sufficiency review)
People ex rel. Waller v. McKoski, 195 Ill. 2d 393 (Ill. 2011) (mandamus requirements and limits)
Daley v. Laurie, 106 Ill. 2d 33 (Ill. 1985) (void orders and jurisdictional limits )
People ex rel. Alvarez v. Skryd, 241 Ill. 2d 34 (Ill. 2011) (mandamus standards and burden on petitioner)
Schillerstrom Homes, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 198 Ill. 2d 281 (Ill. 2001) (three-part Schillerstrom test for home rule power)
City of Chicago v. StubHub, Inc., 2011 IL 111127 (Ill. 2011) (first-step analysis of home-rule authority; limits on local regulation)
Rajterowski v. City of Sycamore, 405 Ill. App. 3d 1086 (Ill. App. 2010) (concurrent funding/authority for school-related regulation)
Board of Education of Bremen High School District No. 228 v. Mitchell, 387 Ill. App. 3d 117 (Ill. App. 2008) (quasi-municipal status of school districts;Apr apr)
City of Chicago v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, 293 Ill. App. 3d 897 (Ill. App. 1997) (state vs municipal powers in education context)
Board of Education of District No. 88 v. Home Real Estate Improvement Corp., 378 Ill. 299 (Ill. 1941) (definitional scope of municipal entities)