Murillo v. City of Chicago
2016 IL App (1st) 143002
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Murillo, a janitor at a Chicago police station, was fingerprinted in 2009 for a security clearance; a 1999 arrest for drug-related charges (dismissed for lack of probable cause) appeared on her criminal-history report.
- Sgt. Raymond Gawne reviewed Murillo’s arrest report and case report, concluded she had engaged in criminal conduct, denied her clearance, and the City caused her contractor employer (Triad) to terminate her assignment at the police facility.
- Murillo sued under the Illinois Human Rights Act, alleging the City used the “fact of an arrest” to change the terms of her employment in violation of 775 ILCS 5/2-103(A).
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Murillo on liability (the City relied on the arrest), a jury awarded damages, and the court awarded attorney fees and costs (with reductions and specified hourly rates).
- The City appealed the summary-judgment ruling and contested the fee award; Murillo cross-appealed on jury instructions (which the appellate court did not reach because it affirmed liability).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City violated 775 ILCS 5/2-103(A) by using the fact of an arrest to change employment terms | Murillo: Gawne relied only on the arrest reports and did not investigate; the City therefore used the fact of arrest in violation of the Act | City: The arrest and accompanying reports qualify as “other information” under §2-103(B) and indicated Murillo actually engaged in the conduct | Held for Murillo: Reports did not “indicate” actual misconduct; City relied on arrest alone, violating §2-103(A) |
| Whether an arrest report can constitute “other information” indicating actual conduct under §2-103(B) | Murillo: Subsection (B) requires investigation beyond bare reports; reports here lacked facts indicating guilt | City: Arrest reports are permissible “other information” showing engagement in conduct | Held: An arrest report can qualify if it contains indicia (confession, witness statements, officer observations), but here it lacked such details and thus did not satisfy (B) |
| Whether the trial court properly reduced and justified attorney-fee time and hourly rates | Murillo: Fee award was too low; rates and reductions improperly applied | City: Fees awarded were excessive | Held: Remand required — trial court abused discretion by failing to explain specific time reductions and arbitrary rate reductions; court must reexamine, justify reductions, and adjust calculations (including 2013 rates and appellate/2-1401 defense fees) |
| Whether the appellate court must decide plaintiff’s cross-appeal on jury instructions | Murillo: Challenged jury instructions | City: (implicit) defend verdict | Held: Not reached because liability affirmed; no need to address cross-appeal instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (billing judgment and reasonableness of fee awards)
- Utah v. Strieff, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (noting collateral consequences of arrest records; cited for policy context)
- Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n, 401 Ill. App. 3d 868 (factors in awarding reasonable attorney rates)
- Richardson v. Haddon, 375 Ill. App. 3d 312 (review and explanation required for fee reductions)
- Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Heber, 355 Ill. App. 3d 1076 (trial court must provide clear explanation for fee reductions)