Pilotto v. Urban Outfitters West, L.L.C.
2016 IL App (1st) 160844
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Alana Pilotto (suffers from Crohn’s disease) was denied use of Anthropologie’s employee restroom after showing a Restroom Access card and explaining her need; she then soiled herself in public and alleged extreme emotional distress.
- Pilotto sued under the Restroom Access Act (410 ILCS 39/1 et seq.) and alleged common-law emotional distress claims; Walgreens (co-defendant) settled and was dismissed.
- The Act requires certain retail establishments to allow customers with eligible medical conditions to use employee restrooms and makes violations a petty offense with a fine up to $100; it also contains a limited immunity provision for retailers.
- Anthropologie moved to dismiss under Ill. S. Ct. R. 2-615, arguing the Act provides no private civil cause of action; the trial court granted dismissal with prejudice.
- On appeal, the First District reversed, holding Pilotto sufficiently pleaded common-law claims and that, alternatively, an implied private right of action exists under the four‑part Fisher test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Restroom Access Act implies a private civil cause of action | Implied right should be recognized because plaintiff is in the protected class, her injury is the harm the Act targets, a private remedy furthers the statute’s purpose, and the $100 petty‑offense remedy is inadequate | The statute’s violation provision (petty offense, ≤ $100) and lack of express private remedy show the legislature did not intend a private civil remedy | Court: Implied private right exists under Fisher: plaintiff is in the protected class; injury is the type the Act prevents; a private action is consistent with the statute’s purpose; the petty‑offense remedy is inadequate to make victims whole or ensure enforcement |
| Whether plaintiff stated common‑law claims (intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress) | The complaint alleges extreme, outrageous conduct and severe distress; statute supplies the duty but claim is common‑law based | Defendant focused on statutory remedy, arguing lack of statutory cause of action defeats the claim | Court: Plaintiff adequately pleaded intentional infliction (aware defendant knew plaintiff’s susceptibility and likely result) and negligent infliction (duty under statute, breach, causation, injury); dismissal under 2‑615 was improper |
| Whether implying a private right would conflict with statutory scheme or legislative intent | Implied action aligns with the Act’s purpose and does not interfere with the petty‑offense enforcement mechanism | Implied remedy would be inconsistent with the statutory violation clause and the legislature’s chosen remedy | Court: No conflict; existing petty‑offense enforcement can coexist with private suits and implying a remedy supports, not undermines, the Act’s purpose |
| Whether the statutory petty‑offense remedy is an adequate alternative (necessity element) | $100 fine and requirement to report to authorities are inadequate, unlikely to redress emotional harm, and insufficient to deter noncompliance | The legislature’s chosen remedy is dispositive; courts should not add remedies absent clear indication | Court: Petty‑offense remedy is inadequate practically and as to redress; private action is necessary for adequate enforcement and relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. Lexington Health Care, Inc., 188 Ill. 2d 455 (statutory implied private‑right framework)
- Cowper v. Nyberg, 2015 IL 117811 (distinguishing statutory‑origin claims from common‑law claims; Noyola/Fisher analysis inapplicable to pure common‑law theories)
- Corgan v. Muehling, 143 Ill. 2d 296 (implying private remedy where statutory/administrative enforcement is inadequate)
- Metzger v. DaRosa, 209 Ill. 2d 30 (implied right inconsistent where statute prescribes exclusive administrative procedures)
- Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill. 2d 172 (implying private right where legislative fines alone might be ignored and would frustrate statutory purpose)
- Abbasi v. Paraskevoulakos, 187 Ill. 2d 386 (declining implication when common‑law remedies duplicate statutory claim)
- King v. Senior Servs. Assocs., Inc., 341 Ill. App. 3d 264 (upholding implied private right under Elder Act in appellate decision)
- Rekosh v. Parks, 316 Ill. App. 3d 58 (express statutory sanctions found adequate; contrasted here)