delivered the opinion of the court:
Petitioner, Victoria M. Matson, filed a charge of handicap discrimination with respondent Illinois Department of Human Rights (the Department) against her employer, respondent Ameritech. The Department issued a notice of dismissal with respect to five of petitioner’s nine counts, finding a lack of substantial evidence. At the same time, the Department issued a notice of substantial evidence with respect to petitioner’s four other counts. The chief legal counsel of the Department affirmed the dismissal of the five counts, and petitioner seeks review of that order. On appeal, petitioner contends (1) that the dismissal of petitioner’s claims was agаinst the manifest weight of the evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and included abuses of discretion; and (2) that the Department’s policies and procedures violated petitioner’s due process rights. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the appeal.
I. BACKGROUND
In her discrimination charge filed with the Department on March 4, 1998, petitiоner alleged that she was handicapped within the meaning of section 1 — 103(1) of the Illinois Human Rights Act (the Act) (775 ILCS 5/1 — 103(1) (West 1998)) due to trigeminal neuralgia, a painful nerve disorder. Petitioner alleged that her employer, Ameritech, discriminated against her due to her handicap in the following ways: (A) removed her from the position of marketing support specialist (MSS); (B) failed to promote her to the position of MSS; (C) denied her formal training for the MSS position; (D) harassed her; (E) applied unequal terms of employment to her; (F) failed to accommodate her handicap by denying her intermittent family and medical leave status; (G) denied her a day off due to serious distress; (H) denied her sick pay; аnd (I) failed to accommodate her handicap by granting her a late starting time. Ameritech filed a verified response to petitioner’s charge, denying the allegations of handicap discrimination.
The Department investigated petitioner’s charge, and the investigator submitted a report to the Director of the Department. Based on the investigator’s report, the Director filed a notice of substantial evidence as to counts B, D, E, and I. The Director also filed a notice of dismissal of counts A, C, F, G, and H due to a lack of substantial evidence. On December 22, 1999, petitioner filed a request for review of the Director’s dismissal of counts A, C, F, G, and H by the chief legal сounsel (775 ILCS 5/7 — 101.1 (West 1998)). On February 15, 2000, the Department filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Human Rights Commission (Commission), alleging counts B, D, E, and I.
On July 17, 2000, the chief legal counsel sustained the Department’s dismissal of counts A, C, F, G, and H. Petitioner filed a timely petition for direct review of the chief counsel’s order (775 ILCS 5/8— 111(A)(1) (West 1998)).
II. DISCUSSION
The Act provides a comprehensive scheme to “sеcure for all individuals within Illinois the freedom from discrimination *** because of *** race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental handicap, military status, or unfavorable discharge from military service in connection with employment, real estate transactions, access to financial credit, and the availability of public accommodations.” 775 ILCS 5/1 — 102(A) (West 1998). The Act creates a uniform procedure for the enforcement of its substantive provisions. Baker v. Miller,
First, the complainant files a charge of discrimination with the Department. 775 ILCS 5/7A — 102(A)(1) (West 1998). Next, the Department conducts a full investigation of the allegations set forth in the charge. 775 ILCS 5/7A — 102(C)(1) (West 1998). Once the investigation is complete, the Department investigator submits a written report to the Department Director. 775 ILCS 5/7A — 102(D)(1) (West 1998). Based on the report, the Director determines whether there is “substantial evidence” that a civil rights violation has been committed. 775 ILCS 5/7A — 102(D)(2) (West 1998).
If the Director finds substantial evidence of a violation, the Department attempts to conciliate the charge. 775 ILCS 5/7A — 102(D)(2)(b) (West 1998). If that attempt fails, the Department files a formal complaint with the Commission, where the claim is adjudicated before an administrative law judge in a formal hearing. 775 ILCS 5/7A— 102(F)(1), (F)(2) (West 1998). On the other hand, if the Director finds no substantial evidence, and therefore dismisses the charge, the complainant may file a request for review by the Department’s chief legal counsel. 775 ILCS 5/7 — 101.1 (West 1998).
When this appeal was originally briefed, petitioner asserted that this court had jurisdiction to review the order of the chief legal counsel pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 335 (155 111. 2d R. 335) and section 8 — 111(A)(1) of the Act (775 ILCS 5/8 — 111(A)(1) (West 1998)). Ameritech and the Department did not dispute this court’s jurisdiction.
The order appealed from dismissed some but not all of petitioner’s claims. The claims that were not dismissed were filed with the Commission. In light of our duty to dismiss an appeal where jurisdiction is lacking (see Sho-Deen, Inc. v. Michel,
Section 7 — 101.1 of the Act provides in pertinent part, “Any final order entered by the Chief Legal Counsel under this Section is appealable in accordance with paragraph (A)(1) of Section 8 — 111.” 775 ILCS 5/7 — 101.1 (West 1998). Section 8 — 111(A)(1) of the Act states:
“Any complainant or respondent may apply for and obtain judicial review of any final order entered under this Act by fifing a petition for review in the Appellate Court within 35 days from the date that a copy of the decision sought to be reviewed was served upon the party affected by the dеcision.” 775 ILCS 5/8 — 111(a)(1) (West 1998).
A decision of the chief legal counsel sustaining a dismissal of . a complaint under section 7 — 101.1(A) is a final order. Kalush v. Department of Human Rights Chief Legal Counsel,
Supreme Court Rule 335 (155 111. 2d R. 335) establishes the procedures for the direct review of orders of an administrative agency by the appellate court. Rule 335(i)(l) specifically provides that “Insofar as appropriate, the provisions of Rules 301 through 373 (except for Rule 326) аre apphcable to proceedings under this rule.” 155 Ill. 2d R. 335(i)(l).
Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (155 111. 2d R. 304(a)) governs appeals from final judgments that do not dispose of the entire proceeding and is intended to permit an appeal to be taken before the final disposition of the case only where the circuit court considers an immediatе appeal appropriate. Seef v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital,
“If *** multiple claims for relief are involved in an action, an appeal may be taken from a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than ah of the *** claims only if the trial court has made an express written finding that there is no just reason for delaying either enforcement or appeal or both. *** In the absence of such a finding, any judgment that adjudicates fewer than all the claims *** is not enforceable or appealable and is subject to revision at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating ah the claims, rights, and liabilities of ah the parties.” 155 Ill. 2d R. 304(a).
The supreme court rules are apphcable to proceedings in the circuit courts of this state. See 134 Ill. 2d R. 1. Our supreme court has also decided that, “insofar as appropriate,” the provisions of Rule 304 are apphcable to appeals from administrative agencies. See 155 Ill. 2d R. 335(i)(l).
Petitioner argues that it is not appropriate to inсorporate Rule 304(a) into Rule 335, as the chief legal counsel does not operate in a manner similar to the circuit courts. More specifically, petitioner claims that the Department does not act as an adjudicatory body because the Department and the chief legal counsel do not resolve credibility issues or questions of fact. See Marinetti v. Human Rights Comm’n,
We do not believe the fact that the chief legal counsel acts in a nonadjudicatory capacity precludes the application of Rule 304(a) to orders of the chief legal counsel that dismiss some but not all of a petitioner’s claims of discrimination. Rule 304(a) аpphes when claims are dismissed solely on a legal basis. For example, a circuit court that dismisses some but not all of the claims in a multicount complaint pursuant to section 2 — 615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2 — 615 (West 1998)) does not resolve credibility issues or questions of fact, because a section 2 — 615 motion admits the truth of the factual allegations in the complaint. Provenzale v. Forister,
The Department argues that it is not appropriate to apply Rule 304(a) to this appeal because the chief legal counsel’s order was not “a judgment as to fewer than all of the claims” where only the decision dismissing five of petitioner’s nine counts was before the chief legal counsel. We reject this argument.
Once again, an analogy to a circuit court ruling on a motion to dismiss is instruсtive. Where a motion to dismiss seeks the dismissal of some but not all of the counts in a complaint, the circuit court, in ruling on that motion, has before it only some of the counts in the complaint. In this situation, the appellate court does not have jurisdiction to review the judgment granting that motion without a Rule 304(a) finding by the circuit court. See 155 Ill. 2d R. 304(a).
Rule 304(a) prevents piecemeal appeals involving fewer than all of the parties or claims, which are to be discouraged. See Waters v. Rein-gold,
We believe that avoiding piecemeal appeals is just as important when the appeal is from an order of the chief legal counsel under the Act as it is when the appeal is from an order of the circuit court. Therefore, we hold that Rule 304(a) applies to the order from which this appeal is taken.
The Department stresses the fact that the Department and the Commission are separаte administrative agencies with distinct duties and powers and that the chief legal counsel’s order was a separate and final administrative decision as to the Department. This fact does not change our conclusion. While it is true that the Department and the Commission are separate agencies (see Webb v. Lustig,
Petitioner contends that, even if Rule 304(a) applies to this appeal, the order of the chief legal counsel satisfies the requirements of Rule 304(a). The order of the chief legal counsel provides in pertinent part:
“This is a final order as to Counts A, C, F, G, and H. A final order may be appealed to the Appellate Court by filing a petition for review, naming 1) the Chief Legal Counsel, 2) the Department, and 3) Respondent appellees, with the Clerk of the Appellate Court within 35 days after the date of service of this order. The Department deems ‘service’ complete 5 days after mailing.”
Petitioner argues that, whеre dismissals are at issue, an explicit statement that the order of the case is immediately appealable should be sufficient. We do not agree.
While it is true that the absence of Rule 304(a)’s precise wording from the order appealed does not conclusively preclude appellate jurisdiction, it must be cleаr that Rule 304(a) is intended to be invoked. In re Application of Du Page County Collector,
The order appealed from in this case states that it is appealable because it is final, not because the chief legal counsel decided that in her discretion there is no just reason to delay the appeal of the dismissal of five of petitioner’s nine claims. Moreover, there is no indication in the record or in the order that the аppeal was sought pursuant to Rule 304(a) or that Rule 304(a) was intended to be invoked.
Rule 304(a) requires the chief legal counsel to determine, in her discretion, whether it is appropriate for the final order disposing of some but not all of petitioner’s claims to be immediately appealed rather than waiting until the remainder of рetitioner’s claims have run their course in the administrative process. An express finding that “there is no just reason for delaying appeal” assures that the issue was decided in light of fairness to the parties, the conservation of judicial resources, and the expedition of the resolution of the controversy. See Schal Bovis,
The сhief legal counsel should consider that petitioner will either be successful with her remaining four claims in the proceedings before the Commission or she will not. In the event petitioner is successful and obtains an acceptable remedy, she may not wish to appeal the dismissal of the five claims by the chief legal counsel. On the other hand, if petitioner is unsuccessful before the Commission, she may wish to appeal the adjudication of those four claims in addition to the dismissal of the five claims by the chief legal counsel. It seems to us that one appeal is more efficient than two. However, these are considerations for the chief legal counsеl, not this court.
The Department also argues that there is nothing in the language of the Act that would toll the time for seeking review of the chief legal counsel’s decision to dismiss some of petitioner’s claims until after the Commission renders a decision as to the remaining claims. We believe that Rule 304(a) itself is authority for appellate rеview of the chief legal counsel’s order under those circumstances. Rule 304(a) authorizes review of such an order in the same way it authorizes review of an order of the circuit court, dismissing some but not all claims in a multicount complaint only after the other counts are adjudicated in the circuit court.
This court lacks jurisdiction to review the chief legal counsel’s order because it did not contain an express finding “that there is no just reason for delaying appeal” pursuant to Rule 304(a). If an order adjudicating fewer than all the claims does not state “that there is no just reason for delaying appeal,” the appellate court has no jurisdiction ovеr an appeal from such judgment, and it is proper for the appellate court to dismiss the appeal on its own motion. See Peesel v. Peesel,
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that this court does not have jurisdiction to review the order of the chief legal counsel of the Department of Human Rights, and we therefore dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
BOWMAN and BYRNE, JJ., concur.