Rozsavolgyi v. The City of Aurora
102 N.E.3d 162
| Ill. | 2017Background
- Patricia Rozsavolgyi sued the City of Aurora under the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) after her 2012 involuntary discharge, alleging failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, retaliation, and hostile work environment based on disability.
- The City asserted, among other defenses, immunities under the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act), invoking sections 3-108, 2-201, and 2-103.
- The circuit court certified three interlocutory questions under Ill. S. Ct. R. 308; the appellate court answered all three and the Department of Human Rights intervened. The appellate majority held the Tort Immunity Act applied to IHRA claims and limited damages recovery.
- Rozsavolgyi obtained a certificate of importance (Ill. S. Ct. R. 316) as to the third certified question, bringing the whole case to the Illinois Supreme Court as a matter of right.
- The Supreme Court reviewed procedural rules governing certification (Rules 308, 316, 315), concluded the third certified question was overbroad and would create an advisory opinion, declined to answer it, vacated the appellate court’s opinion in its entirety, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IHRA §2-102(A) recognizes hostile work environment "disability harassment" and whether reasonable-accommodation claims can be separate | Rozsavolgyi: IHRA permits hostile work environment claims based on disability; accommodation claim may be separate | City: argued counts I and IV should be dismissed; plaintiff must plead compliance with employer policies | Supreme Court declined to decide here (appellate court had answered but Supreme Court remanded and did not address merits) |
| Whether IHRA §2-102(D)’s employer-responsibility language (as in sexual-harassment context) and the burden allocation/Faragher-Ellerth defenses apply to disability hostile work environment claims | Rozsavolgyi: statutory framework and burdens apply to disability harassment similarly | City: alternative defenses, argued employer burden/affirmative defenses should bar recovery if plaintiff failed to follow policies | Supreme Court declined to decide here (left issue for lower courts on remand) |
| Whether the Tort Immunity Act applies to civil actions under the IHRA (i.e., bars damages, fees, costs) | Rozsavolgyi & Department: third certified question improperly broad; existing appellate precedent (Streeter/Firestone/Birkett) bars applying Tort Immunity Act to non‑tort civil rights/constitutional claims | City: Tort Immunity Act applies to civil actions seeking damages/fees and bars such relief; appellate precedent should be overturned | Supreme Court: third certified question was overbroad and would produce advisory opinion; declined to answer; vacated appellate judgment and remanded; admonished proper use of Rules 308/316 and urged use of Rule 315 for this review |
Key Cases Cited
- Raintree Homes, Inc. v. Village of Long Grove, 209 Ill. 2d 248 (Ill. 2004) (clarifies appellate reasoning not adopted by supreme court regarding Tort Immunity Act’s scope)
- Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. v. Gleason, 181 Ill. 2d 460 (Ill. 1998) (courts should avoid issuing advisory opinions; certified questions must not depend on factual predicates)
- De Bouse v. Bayer AG, 235 Ill. 2d 544 (Ill. 2009) (modifying certified questions to the factual context of the case)
- Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency, 238 Ill. 2d 262 (Ill. 2010) (Rule 316 brings the whole case before the supreme court)
- Streeter v. County of Winnebago, 44 Ill. App. 3d 392 (Ill. App. 1976) (appellate precedent that Tort Immunity Act applies only to tort actions)
- Firestone v. Fritz, 119 Ill. App. 3d 685 (Ill. App. 1983) (same line of appellate authority regarding Tort Immunity Act)
- People ex rel. Birkett v. City of Chicago, 325 Ill. App. 3d 196 (Ill. App. 2001) (same line of appellate authority regarding Tort Immunity Act)