her rights under the only constitution article one section seventeen through nineteen as a relates to discrimination particularly here discrimination in the workplace now in the year two thousand and eight  is an aspect of it that yes relates to the issue of gaming so that both head to head with the concept here so on the one hand we have this broad big stature that is enforcing our constitutional right and then we have nearly overriding goals of the illinois human rights act clearly see the legislative intent regarding here and to the extent that he would live it there were rights of  persons working for local public and he said here it should be found to be either unconstitutional or one of those cases where this court has found that the teacher should not apply like smith call for constitutional violations under federal law and they specifically dealt with immunities there that were raised by a municipality and to quote the united states supreme court a damages remedy established to protect the very rights it has framed breath that concept there would be a put the ball here to say that the damages remedy should be available and this this court said that that case damages remedies available but one reason is because it related to workers comp and as justice mclaren said this quoting here is related to contractual log just like this court said to smith versus waukegan and secondly this court in smith vs waukegan said that it is the employer that's responsible not individual and therefore feeling applying that factors now or in any of the seating can be said here too again we're dealing with the issue of whether or not this hostile work environment is a separate distinct claim under the only human rights act and once again if the clear terms of this stature the t privileges and conditions of employment are protected by the statute has been held since the nine hundred eighty s that the truth privileges language means in this context that hostile work environment based on age three it sets national or will it end all of those are protective and imagine a workplace where it would not became known to members of management or supervisors which under respondents occur with me the employer knows so the employer knows or reasonably should know if this interview is being subjected to a hostile work environment such that it impacts his or her ability to work then it's the duty of that employer to make it stop to make it sees  we follow your argument and decline to answer number three yes this has any impact whether we should answer the morning to when they really weren't that really was on the basis that this absolutely correct we are only seeking an interpretation that toward immunity act limits our liability for damages simple example emotional distress lawyers fire they may seek to that there is no requirement in the state law as opposed to the federal law or does it mean that there is an implied obligation does a statutory structure of dealing with sexual harassment where not only are the elements of the claim but the elements of defense set forth in the statute mean they act disability harassment whatever that means  has not been provided for by the legislature or that it has been implied provided for by the legislation that's how i think that's the come into place and should work entertain all of the questions  parties they are spent quite a bit of time faxing over the word duty and immunity all sorts of municipalities are under all sorts of duties whether they are common law or statutory sure we have duties under the illinois human rights act but that's quite apart from the question of are we a mutant from a certain category of liability that is a purely legislative either carve out or perhaps a comprehensive legislative structure that sets forth a separate category of municipal liability or public sector liability for damages absent either of those republican ploy on a ted head floor scaffold on a publicly owned building as it is a privately held building that has a structural work act as a how prehensile remedial structure passed by the legislature workers but this court is held in the extreme case that for the exact reasons that i'm arguing in this case the legislature has made the determination to limit the liability of  a judgment in her favor on the harassment claims in court or isn't this asking asked render an advisory opinion  anyway like you're asking us to render an advisory of pain so it will be easier when you get to a factual determination i don't believe so you're on for this reason we have a complaint that alleges various forms of all equitable will be she's entitled a certain amount of certain relief but what is ultimately determined to be the average family using general principle wouldn't be on that menu so you're on i i do believe we have a we have an actual controversy here  certainly on the third question it is let me now turn to the other question because i will concede we are trading a little closer to the advisory opinion land and reasonable accommodation for me let me turn to that in our case the argument of are the allegations of the complaint are that the city of aurora failed to accommodate my mental disability claim mental disability by failing to stop the harassment easing by the cold ploy the issue we have in terms of moving to strike the reasonable accommodation is that everybody is in agreement that the statute is silent on the issue of reasonable accommodation to be sure the modeled after are based on a specific provision in the federal law obligating employers to provide reasonable accommodations and as one of the commentators of the human rights act article  that there is no statutory obligation to do so but you now finally turn to the issue of disability harassment i wouldn't have an argument at all on this point were it not for the unusual language of section two dash one of two of the human rights that that is the language that specifically says that employees may not engage in sexual harassment and then it goes on to provide employer defenses to sexual harassment and those offenses court orders opinion in the police case says well stage is very clear if if the harassment by sexual harassment by a management employee supervisory employee strict liability stated further provides that if the harassment which which raises the question if the statute is silent how can we as employers be subject to a specific obligation under th buildings in two thousand and eleven in a case called no way for city of country of the court's opinion written by justice thomas folks in terms of the impermissible double negative presumption from using that type of line meaning just because the statute says you can't do something doesn't mean that it's not cover that is a that is a license for m case so i'm questions dealing with the reasonable accommodation we believe it is a life question because we are subjected to liability for failing to accommodate miss rose of all we're not subject to liability on that claim because there is nothing in the statute which will mostly would indicate that public employer or any employee is subject to  not there it's not there because court is limited to implementing a structure that the legislature has put in place all one hundred regulations fifty lower or  in one of the questions that is the is it an affirmative requirement for the employer he to avail himself or herself of the anti harassment policies of the owner  they're playing the plaintiff admits that she found no written complaint but but basically urged years that she repeatedly complained to her immediate supervisors and that's tantamount to having done the same thing to we effect questions that we have to deal with with respect to that question that is a fair question and that probably that is that is something that goes beyond this case the but it it relates right to the problem that i to another form of harassment just it doesn't make legislative or doesn't make logical sense maybe different legislators what's the practical import of this court only here involves the certified question by which it got here really the woman was certified important to this court then case goes back to trial court i s i i believe than the other answers  hold i will have to defend a reasonable accommodation claim and i will have to say i will have to defend the harassment claim but we will have the benefit of the statute so apparently very it's why everybody seems to be in agreement you want this court to you know it's are all three of the questions because the way to involve appeals down the one in five years that is that is correct it's this is this is very unusual where it's almost like a double layer of pure questions of law which create your honour's discomfort but these questions aren't going to go away the the harassment is the teasing and what's the everybody to determine what the standard of employer liability is on that and the reasonable accommodation as i mentioned blends bleeds into the harassment because you know ordinarily a reasonable accommodation is a wheelchair into that that that is not a pure question of why i think about it but i do think that the court would help the parties and all of people in my position representing municipalities and local governments respond to these the issue of piecemeal peals and i believe the court has the ability to answer these questions what is essentially a pleading record and very little factual  counsel said the elements of first that there must be employee must be in a protected class in this case the employee must be disabled under the act and the second element is that the employer must be performing according to the employer's legitimate business expectations and suffer an adverse employment action in this case the adverse employment action is the hostile work environment pursuant to the employer's anti harassment anti discrimination policy what the employee must do is apprise someone who the employee believes could receive those complaints by whatever means the employee seems reasonable and constitutional plates which is what we're dealing with here now if you're honest i would recollect the appellate court in the second district they overturned it some of their prior precedents which includes  not in the birkhead decision the diocese there said that made this exact argument they made it the argument that we made it that t i a applies to constitutional violations it is necessarily unconstitutional and the second district in its birkhead decision said the t i a and his definition of injury to include constitutional violations is not unconstitutional because it does not apply to constitutional place but now that question is back any type of legislative amendment and he's high above a judicial opinion for that matter the constitution is what governs and that should take precedence over anything else now with regards to the t existence yet they did not in their list of exemptions include the structural work act as they did with you know claims under the worker's compensation law however your honor your honors the i h r a human rights act was not an existence yet so how the legislature could include the ira the human rights act in his list of exemptions at that time is impossible not with regards to that being said your honor the the case we cited to illinois supreme want to get to the main crux of this case and i think that is the elephant in the room does the t s a actually immunize claims for damages under the human rights it's to avoid it this question be an advisory opinion made the argument that no no this question should apply to the particular facts of this case so i look at the particular facts of th one one zero one point one it explicitly says that the t s a immunity in the eyes is local governmental entities for operations of government that's what i want this court to focus on operation of government what does that a local mr minister plenty who are violates the law is not operating as an arm of government that's what those cases decides to violate their probation of another and nachman a legislature in other words they are not serving the benefits of the public when they are violating the law  law because they are not acting under the operation of government the county sheriff which is a recent decision pushed up with a name for age harassment by the first district in the first district ruled in accordance with the same reasoning that the second district here utilized to discriminatory work environment that has been the consensus in the commission and there is no reason why this court to deviate from that when one there is not a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that by itself illustrates that this question was not properly certified in the first place now with regards to the reasonable accommodation question opposing counsel made the argument that there is nothing in the the only human rights act that are familiar with the reason i'm accommodation framework this is true because the commission has promulgated rules and those rules are to be construed just like statutes so that is the law of this state to state and the employers are familiar with that and furthermore your honour's under the rest palliation six section six want to know why if i could just briefly wrap up your honors there is heightened provision of six one zero one also