Find Legal Information

JUSTICE KAPALA delivered the opinion of the court:

Pro se petitioner, Matthew Norville, Sr., filed a charge offamilial status discrimination (775 ILCS 5/3--101 et seq. (West2000)) against respondent Franciscan Ministries, Inc. (FranciscanMinistries), alleging that Franciscan Ministries refused to rent athree-bedroom apartment to him because of the number of children he and his wife had who were under 18 years old. RespondentIllinois Department of Human Rights (Department) initiallydismissed the charge for lack of substantial evidence. On review,the chief legal counsel (CLC) for the Department vacated thedismissal and reinstated the charge "for further work as necessaryand other proceedings by the Department." The Department againdismissed the charge for lack of substantial evidence, and onreview, the CLC sustained the dismissal, finding that "[t]here isno evidence that Respondent [Franciscan Ministries] refused to rentto Complainant because of Complainant's familial status." Petitioner timely appealed from this order.

FACTS

Petitioner and his wife had eight children when he commencedproceedings against Franciscan Ministries. During the pendency ofthe proceedings, his wife gave birth to their ninth child. Petitioner's family thus consisted of 11 people, with 8 of the 9children being under the age of 18. Franciscan Ministries ownedthe Assisi Homes Batavia Apartments, Inc., a 290-unit apartmentcomplex in the City of Batavia, in Kane County. The Department'sfact investigation revealed the following. In or about April 2000,petitioner met with a representative of Franciscan Ministries inWheaton. Petitioner explained that he and his family had recentlybeen evicted from their previous housing and that his familyconsisted of his wife and eight children. The housing agentreplied that the largest apartment that might become available wasa three-bedroom unit. The agent further stated that the three-bedroom apartment was not large enough to accommodate 10 people. When petitioner told the agent he believed his family could fitinto the unit, the agent responded that it was not a matter offitting into the apartment; the concern was Franciscan Ministries'policy limiting the number of persons who occupied a dwelling.

The Department verified that the occupancy standard for thethree-bedroom apartments was seven individuals. The site occupancystandards documented a total of 290 units, 29 of which were 3-bedroom units. Only 2 of those 3-bedroom units had no children; 7had 2 children; 11 had 3 children; and 3 had 5 children. Overall,approximately 90% of all the units in the complex were occupied byfamilies with children. The Department also learned thatFranciscan Ministries received federal assistance and that thefederal regulations required Franciscan Ministries to meet federalhousing guidelines, which included at least one bedroom or sleepingroom of appropriate size for each two persons. The physicalinspection of the three-bedroom units confirmed that one bedroomwas 91 square feet, the second was 108 square feet, and the thirdwas 144 square feet. The entire area of a three-bedroom unittotaled 1,082 square feet. Each had one bathroom and no other areathat could be converted for use as extra sleeping space. TheDepartment also verified that neither the City of Batavia nor KaneCounty had occupancy ordinances.

DISCUSSION

In this appeal, petitioner challenges Franciscan Ministries'right to establish occupancy limits in the absence of governmentalregulation. It is petitioner's belief that only a unit ofgovernment may promulgate occupancy limits.

The CLC's decision to sustain a dismissal of a human rightsviolation charge will not be disturbed unless it is arbitrary,capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Graves v. Chief LegalCounsel of the Department of Human Rights, 327 Ill. App. 3d 293,295 (2002).

Section 3--102(A) of the Illinois Human Rights Act (Act) (775ILCS 5/3--102(A) (West 2000)) makes it a civil rights violation foran owner or other person engaging in a real estate transaction torefuse to engage in the transaction because of familial status. Section 3--101(E) of the Act defines familial status as one or moreindividuals, who have not attained the age of 18 years, beingdomiciled with a parent having legal custody of such individuals.775 ILCS 5/3--101(E) (West 2000). Section 3--106(D) of the Actprovides an exemption for "[r]easonable local, State, or Federalrestrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted tooccupy a dwelling." 775 ILCS 5/3--106(D) (West 2000). Petitionermisconstrues this provision to exclude a private owner's right tolimit occupancy. He relies on City of Edmonds v. Oxford House,Inc., 514 U.S. 725, 735 n.9, 131 L. Ed. 2d 801, 811 n.9, 115 S. Ct.1776, 1782 n.9 (1995), where the United States Supreme Courtinterpreted the federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C.