Crittenden v. Cook County Commission on Human Rights
973 N.E.2d 408
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Boyd alleged sexual harassment by manager Crittenden at Jimmy’s Place in July 2006; she worked as a bartender August 2003–July 2006 and reported the incident to police.
- Cook County Human Rights Ordinance violation found by the Commission, with an award of $41,670 in back pay, $5,000 compensatory damages, and $5,000 punitive damages.
- Hearing officer credited Boyd’s testimony over defense witnesses; indicated credibility determinations were pivotal.
- Defense challenged Boyd’s credibility, the use of hearsay, and the damages award; the Commission upheld liability but punitive damages were contested.
- Circuit court denied certiorari and affirmed liability and damages; appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part (punitive damages overturned).
- Record included disputed dates (July 19 vs July 26, 2006) and testimony about family presence; these were addressed as credibility and corroboration rather than fatal to Boyd’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boyd’s credibility support was against the manifest weight | Boyd credible; others less credible | Defendants assert inconsistency undermines credibility | Not against the manifest weight; credibility affirmed |
| Whether the hearing officer relied on hearsay evidence appropriately | Hearsay evidence supported credibility | Evidence improperly relied on; harmless error | Hearsay reliance harmless; substantial evidence supports decision |
| Whether damages, especially lost wages, were properly awarded | Lost wages supported by testimony; mitigation not shown | Lacked documentary evidence; mitigation burdens on employer | Compensatory damages affirmed; lost wages supported by testimony; mitigation not proven defective |
| Whether punitive damages were authorized under the Ordinance | Punitive damages permitted by nonexclusive remedies and liberal construction | No express grant of punitive damages; not allowed | Punitive damages reversed; not authorized by the Ordinance |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (guidance on hostile environment standard)
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (no single factor required for hostile environment; factors to consider)
- Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d 172 (1978) (punitive damages require egregious conduct or willful/maultce; penal nature)
- Vuagniaux v. Department of Professional Regulation, 208 Ill.2d 173 (2003) (agency powers are statutory; punitive damages require express authority)
- Page v. City of Chicago, 299 Ill. App. 3d 450 (1998) (agency may award punitive damages under nonexclusive remedies; atmosphere of Illinois appellate discussion)
- 1212 Restaurant Group, LLC v. Alexander, 2011 IL App (1st) 100797 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2011) (cites Page on punitive damages under Chicago ordinance; not controlling here)
- Hansen v. City of Chicago, 155 Ill. App. 3d 472 (1987) (standard for judicial admissions and de novo review discussions)
- O’Neill v. Chicago Transit Authority, 5 Ill. App. 3d 69 (1972) (illustrates limits on amending sworn complaints after evidence)