Hoffman v. Madigan
80 N.E.3d 105
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- CMS (substituted plaintiff Acting Director Michael Hoffman) sought declaratory and injunctive relief after the Illinois Attorney General refused to argue before the Workers’ Compensation Commission that certain "personal assistants" are not State employees and objected to CMS hiring a special assistant AG to make that argument.
- Personal assistants provide in-home services under the Disabled Persons Rehabilitation Act; DHS regulations treat the disabled "customer" as the employer, and statutory amendments limited State employer status of personal assistants to certain labor relations purposes.
- CMS denied workers’ compensation claims by a personal assistant (Yencer‑Price) as not being a State employee; Yencer‑Price filed claims before the Commission, where the Commission historically has found personal assistants to be State employees.
- CMS asked the AG to present the non‑employee defense in Commission proceedings and to allow CMS to select special counsel; the AG refused, arguing discretion to choose litigation strategy and contending the AG office was vigorously defending the cases.
- CMS sued to enjoin the AG from representing CMS on these matters and to obtain appointment of special counsel; the trial court dismissed CMS’s complaint under section 2‑615. CMS appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AG’s refusal to raise the non‑employee defense creates a disqualifying conflict requiring appointment of special counsel | CMS: AG’s refusal interferes with CMS’s statutory duty to determine compensability and constitutes a conflict that justifies special counsel | AG: No disqualifying conflict; AG has constitutional/statutory authority to represent the State and broad litigation discretion | Court: No conflict; AG’s selection of arguments is within her discretion and does not warrant removal |
| Whether CMS stated a colorable claim that personal assistants are not State employees such that court should appoint special counsel | CMS: Cites Harris v. Quinn and statutory language to show a colorable, viable non‑employee claim | AG: Harris did not decide state‑law employment status; the Commission has long rejected the non‑employee argument | Court: Even if CMS’s position is arguable, AG’s refusal to press a repeatedly unsuccessful argument is within discretion; no basis to appoint special counsel |
| Separation of powers / usurpation of executive authority by AG | CMS: AG’s refusal to advance CMS’s statutory position unduly encroaches on CMS’s executive authority to determine compensability | AG: AG’s duty to conduct State legal business is an executive function and within her constitutional role | Court: Separation‑of‑powers claim unpersuasive; dispute concerns intra‑executive litigation strategy and falls within AG authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Environmental Protection Agency v. Pollution Control Board, 69 Ill.2d 394 (Ill. 1977) (limits appointment of special counsel to when AG is personally interested or a party; AG must be able to direct State legal affairs)
- Suburban Cook County Regional Office of Education v. Cook County Board, 282 Ill. App. 3d 560 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (court may appoint special counsel when an irreconcilable conflict exists between officials AG must represent)
- Harris v. Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618 (U.S. 2014) (addressed status of home‑care personal assistants in federal First Amendment/union‑fee context; not a state‑law employment ruling)
- People ex rel. Scott v. Briceland, 65 Ill.2d 485 (Ill. 1976) (reaffirms AG as sole officer authorized to represent State in litigation when State is the real party in interest)