Twyman v. The Illinois Department of Employment Security
2017 IL App (1st) 162367
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Wayde Twyman (pro se) sought judicial review under the Administrative Review Law of a Board of Review decision denying unemployment benefits after his discharge for excessive absenteeism (no-call/no-show on Thanksgiving).
- Board mailed its final decision on May 3, 2016, and the decision stated the appellant "must" file a complaint and have summons issue in circuit court within 35 days (deadline June 7, 2016).
- Twyman filed a pro se complaint in circuit court on June 9, 2016 (two days late).
- State defendants moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(5) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the action was not commenced within the statutory 35-day period.
- The trial court granted dismissal with prejudice; Twyman’s motion to vacate was denied, and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Twyman’s late filing deprives the court of jurisdiction / warrants dismissal | Twyman claimed he was unaware of the 35‑day rule and alleges he attempted to appeal by sending letters/fax within 35 days | State defendants argued the complaint was filed after the 35‑day period and thus the action was not commenced in the time required by the Administrative Review Law | Dismissal affirmed: failure to commence review within the statutory time (and no adequate evidence of good‑faith compliance) warranted dismissal |
| If the court reached the merits, whether Board wrongly denied benefits | Twyman contended he believed he was not scheduled and thus had no misconduct | Defendants relied on Board’s factual credibility findings that Twyman was a no‑call/no‑show and discharged for misconduct | Even on the merits, Board’s credibility findings are prima facie correct; record supports denial of benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- ESG Watts, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 191 Ill. 2d 26 (court must strictly adhere to statutory procedures when exercising special statutory jurisdiction)
- McGaughy v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n, 165 Ill. 2d 1 (same principle on special statutory jurisdiction)
- Fredman Bros. Furniture Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202 (statutory procedures delimit court’s power in administrative-review matters)
- Burns v. Dep’t of Employment Security, 342 Ill. App. 3d 780 (35‑day issuance-of‑summons rule treated as mandatory; narrow good‑faith exception recognized)
- Petrovic v. Dep’t of Employment Security, 2016 IL 118562 (standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact)
- Slepicka v. Illinois Dep’t of Public Health, 2014 IL 116927 (failure to follow statutory procedures can defeat jurisdiction)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Doherty, 299 Ill. App. 3d 338 (tribunal’s credibility findings accorded deference on review)
- Hurst v. Dep’t of Employment Security, 393 Ill. App. 3d 323 (deference to Board on credibility and factual findings)