Rozsavolgyi v. City of Aurora
58 N.E.3d 65
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Patricia Rozsavolgyi, a long‑time City of Aurora employee, alleged disabilities (depression, anxiety, panic attacks, partial hearing loss) and claimed coworkers subjected her to ongoing harassment; she complained orally to supervisors and union rep.
- After she used the word “idiots” to a coworker on July 3, 2012, the City terminated her; she alleged others used worse language without discipline.
- Rozsavolgyi sued under the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) asserting refusal to accommodate, disparate treatment, retaliation, and hostile‑work‑environment disability harassment; she sought damages and equitable relief.
- Trial court initially dismissed, then reinstated counts for refusal to accommodate and hostile work environment; certified Rule 308 questions to the appellate court.
- Certified questions addressed: (1) whether IHRA §2‑102(A) prohibits disability harassment and allows a standalone accommodation claim; (2) whether §2‑102(D)’s employer‑liability parameters for sexual harassment apply to disability coworker harassment and who bears proof; and (3) whether the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) applies to IHRA actions seeking damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2‑102(A) of IHRA prohibits hostile‑work‑environment disability harassment | Rozsavolgyi: §2‑102(A)’s phrase “terms, privileges or conditions of employment” encompasses hostile‑environment disability harassment | City: IHRA expressly added sexual harassment separately; legislature excluded other harassment types so §2‑102(A) does not create a harassment cause of action | Court: §2‑102(A) can be read to prohibit disability hostile‑work‑environment harassment; statutory ambiguity resolved in favor of an expansive, remedial reading (affirmative) |
| Whether a failure to provide reasonable accommodation is a standalone claim under §2‑102(A) or only an element of disparate‑treatment | Rozsavolgyi: the Commission’s longstanding reasonable‑accommodation regulations and federal ADA precedent support a separate accommodation claim | City: IHRA does not expressly impose a disability accommodation duty; such duty should be part of disparate‑treatment prima facie case | Court: reasonable‑accommodation claim is cognizable as a separate/alternative claim under §2‑102(A); Commission regulations are valid and employers have had notice |
| Whether §2‑102(D)’s employer‑liability parameters (awareness + failure to correct) for coworker sexual harassment apply to disability harassment, and who bears proof | Rozsavolgyi: apply general McDonnell Douglas burden framework; employer’s use of policies is relevant but not absolute bar | City: §2‑102(D) should apply and plaintiff must show compliance with reporting/corrective procedures as prerequisite to liability | Court: §2‑102(D)’s parameters apply to disability coworker harassment; plaintiff bears ultimate burden of persuasion to prove employer awareness and failure to take reasonable corrective measures |
| Whether the Tort Immunity Act shields a local public entity from IHRA damage claims | Rozsavolgyi: IHRA claims implement constitutional civil‑rights protections and equitable relief remains available; prior appellate precedent limited application of Tort Immunity Act to torts | City: Tort Immunity Act applies to IHRA damage claims; appellate precedents limiting the Act should be rejected | Court: Tort Immunity Act applies to IHRA actions seeking damages (but not to equitable relief); prior appellate cases holding otherwise are not followed in light of statute and supreme court guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (hostile‑work‑environment harassment is actionable discrimination under Title VII)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for prima facie discrimination cases)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S. 1998) (Faragher affirmative defense for supervisory harassment under Title VII)
- Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (Ellerth affirmative defense for supervisory harassment under Title VII)
- Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department v. Human Rights Comm’n, 233 Ill. 2d 125 (Ill. 2009) (employer strict liability for supervisory sexual harassment under IHRA)
- Old Ben Coal Co. v. Human Rights Comm’n, 150 Ill. App. 3d 304 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (pre‑1983 recognition that sexual harassment could be analyzed as discrimination under "terms, conditions or privileges")
- Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 209 Ill. 2d 248 (Ill. 2004) (Tort Immunity Act does not categorically exclude non‑tort actions)