Find Legal Information

FOURTH DIVISION

November 5, 1998

No. 1-97-3843

PRESIDING JUSTICE SOUTH delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Bowne of Chicago, Inc. (Bowne), brought this action for injunctive relief and damagesagainst defendants, the Illinois Department of Human Rights (Department) and the IllinoisHuman Rights Commission (Commission). Bowne's suit sought to enjoin the Commission fromhearing a civil rights complaint that Department brought against Bowne on behalf of the nominaldefendant, Dorothy Jackson-Jordan. It also sought damages against the Department for failing tocease its investigation against Bowne and for filing the complaint. The circuit court dismissedBowne's complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615(West 1996)) and Bowne appeals.

On March 27, 1992, Jackson-Jordan filed a charge with the Department alleging that Bowneviolated her rights under the Illinois Human Rights Act (Act) (775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. (West1996)). Jackson-Jordan amended the charge on September 1, 1994. The Department conducted aninvestigation and filed a complaint with the Commission on January 7, 1997, approximately1,747 days after Jackson-Jordan filed her original charge, alleging that Bowne subjected her tosexual harassment in violation of section 2-102(D) of the Act (775 ILCS 5/2-102(D) (West1996)).

On January 31, 1997, Bowne filed with the Commission a motion to dismiss Jackson-Jordan'scomplaint. Bowne asserted in its motion to dismiss that the complaint filed by the Department onbehalf of Jackson-Jordan was untimely pursuant to section 7A-102(G)(1) of the Act in that thecomplaint was filed by the Department beyond 365 days from the filing of the underlying charge;thus, the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction. On April 30, 1997, the Commission, bythe presiding administrative law judge, denied Bowne's motion to dismiss on the grounds that theterm "causes of action," as used in section 7A-102(H), means "charge" and not "complaint" andordered Bowne to answer the Department's complaint.

On May 15, 1997, Bowne filed a complaint in the circuit court. In its complaint, Bowne asked thecircuit court to permanently enjoin the Commission from adjudicating the complaint brought onJackson-Jordan's behalf. Bowne alleged that the Commission lacked the statutory authority andjurisdiction to adjudicate said matter in that the complaint filed by the Department with theCommission was untimely pursuant to section 7A-102(G) (775 ILCS 5/7A-102(G) (West 1996)).Bowne also sought damages against the Department pursuant to section 7A-102(G)(3) of the Act,which provides that the Department may be liable for costs and damages incurred by arespondent where the Department fails to cease an investigation as required under the Act. Therelevant portions of the statute regarding the filing of a charge read as follows:

"(G) Time Limit.

(1) When a charge of civil rights violation has been properly filed, the Department, within365 days thereof or within any extension of that period agreed to in writing by all parties,shall either issue and file a complaint in the manner and form set forth in this Section orshall order that no complaint be issued and dismiss the charge with prejudice without anyfurther right to proceed except in cases in which the order was procured by fraud or duress.Any such order shall be duly served upon both the complainant and the respondent.

(2) Between 365 and 395 days after the charge is filed, or such longer period agreed to inwriting by all parties, the aggrieved party may file a complaint with the Commission, if theDirector has not sooner issued a report and determination pursuant to paragraphs (D)(1)and (D)(2) of this Section. The form of the complaint shall be in accordance with theprovisions of paragraph (F). The aggrieved party shall notify the Department that acomplaint has been filed and shall serve a copy of the complaint on the Department on thesame date that the complaint is filed with the Commission.

(3) If an aggrieved party files a complaint with the Human Rights Commission pursuant toparagraph (2) of this subsection, or if the time period for filing a complaint has expired, theDepartment shall immediately cease its investigation and dismiss the charge of civil rightsviolation. Any final order entered by the Chief Legal Counsel under this Section isappealable in accordance with paragraph (A)(1) of Section 8-111. Failure to immediatelycease an investigation and dismiss the charge of civil rights violation as provided in thisparagraph (3) constitutes grounds for entry of an order by the circuit court permanentlyenjoining the investigation. The Department may also be liable for any costs and otherdamages incurred by the respondent as a result of the action of the Department.

(4) The Department shall stay any administrative proceedings under this Section after thefiling of a civil action by or on behalf of the aggrieved party under any federal or State lawseeking relief with respect to the alleged civil rights violation.

(H) This amendatory Act of 1995 applies to causes of action filed on or after January 1,1996." 775 ILCS 5/7A-102(G), (H) (West 1996).

The Department and the Commission filed a motion to dismiss Bowne's complaint under section2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 1996)). The court granted themotion and dismissed Bowne's complaint with prejudice.

Bowne asserts that section 7A-102 of the Act bars the Commission from adjudicatingJackson-Jordan's claim because the Department filed a complaint on her behalf more than 365days after she filed her charge with the Department.

The statute states that Public Act 89-370's amendments (Pub. Act 89-370,