chief justice justice s my name is maureen hannan i'm an assistant state's attorney for cook county and along with my co counsel thomas carr g we are here on behalf of cook county and the cook county department of human rights we believe that the first court recently in june of two thousand and twelve made an error in holding the cook county commission did not have the authority to award punitive damages we believe this was paradise surprise for several reasons first because the first district had already previously decided that the identical language in the city of chicago cook county city of chicago human rights ordinance permitted a finding of punitive damages and permitted the authority on the identical language to award punitive damages it was also a surprise because the case itself warranted punitive damages and i will let counsel for misled that a boy who was the injured party in this case address that we believe that the cook county commission has authority toward punitive damages for three reasons first the enforcement remedies of the statute itself commit that the remedies can include anything relief may include but it's not limited to and then there is the list of remedies this court has held in vincent versus alton park strathmore the punitive damages are in fact a type of remedy in addition the language of the ordinance is very broad it is indicative of the desire of the cook county board of commissioners to give discretionary authority to the commission in addition to granting the power to the evil legal conduct complained of and to take steps to alleviate the effect of the illegal conduct i'd like to point out that the ordinance also gives the commission of florida to file with the department of professional regulation a notice in the event that any licensed real estate broker or sales person violates this ordinance that discretionary authority they may file or may not is indicative of the desire of the cook county board to grant the commission the authority to slap the hand of the defendant that is the power here is implicit within the relief the power toward punitive damages and is implicit within the relief that is set forth but it is also consistent with i think the second your honor i don't think there's any dispute that based on the whole moral power of cook county that we could pass an ordinance to let them award punitive damages but our position is that the authority toward punitive damages is inherently within position is it's open ended in an open ended enough to include punitive damages and if the you mention that to a whole courts have gone different ways here presumably that's why it's here but regardless  once we rule the ordinance can always be changed if they don't agree that is true your honor but we don't want to handicap ordinances and handicap boards that enter these types of things and make them expressly state each and every remedy therefore we would make the whole statutory chair paly interpretation of implied powers irrelevant if we did that there is a case off course where the interpretation of an ordinance by its own body has taken precedence and i submit that the fact that the county board didn't amend this ordinance after the page decision was entered in one nine hundred ninety eight it didn't amend this ordinance even in two thousand and two when when our dance was corrected to that to handicap or clipped the wings of the commission but in fact expand its scope and that in two thousand and two we had a gender identity as a protected class so if the county board when the injured party is the public itself the public fisc to the extent a case is brought challenging the behavior of a defendant i can't think of one right now where is there is not an injured party like in a sexual harassment case fines are appropriate and they are good recommendation and i think this list in the remedies from the cook county board setting up the commission is indicative of ideas and possibilities but there is no way that that's a limitation on the event and section before a states the hearing officer here in the case shall make findings of fact based on the evidence of that at the hearing and should also recommend such relief as is appropriate to make a complaint whole doesn't that seem to be very clear language that the authority is to make a complaint and whole compensatory damages not going to them since your honor respectfully i think that language isn't a limitation i think it is an authorization for the hearing officer to use their discretion to yes make me complain whole but i think the remedy section where in they grant the additional discretion for the hearing officer to grant other award you know ceasing the illegal conduct and taking steps to alleviate such as teach deter and punish as well as this authority to notify a licensure if they felt the situation warranted is indicative of the discretion the broader discretion i did read the brief that was filed in this case and i want to point out that their main argument was that this is somehow a violation of due process and i submit that the process issue doesn't come into play unless the punitive damage award is arbitrary or excessive or unreasonable and any defendant in before the commission who thinks that is unreasonable has several opportunities to address that once the hearing officer produces their opinion there is a time for exceptions to be made by the defendant they have an opportunity to put those exceptions in writing and then the commission as a whole reviews the decision that's eleven members who have to prove not always entirely punitive nature i think the circumstances of each case have to dictate your honor even mention in the dissenting opinion that was cited in the of micus brief the union case versus lows it was a false picketing case and you even said in the dissent that some crimes such as some tort such as sexual harrison and false prosecution are even more worse than false picking there are some crimes that are such that need to be addressed with something more than just compensatory damages for lost wages in this case and i see that my time is up one more certainly if we find  the findings of fact of the court below of the hearing officer below was that this was in fact did rise to the level of punitive damages and i think this court has to accept the findings of fact you do get to issue two to review it means a wanton disregard for the rights of others which clearly happened in this case and i think my co counsel addressed for you what mr crittendon did to lynette a boy so i don't think we'll for the wotton needs to be in the order in order to find punitive damages i want and disregard for others is appropriate thank you very much for this opportunity this is thomas launched me to inform the co counsel of justice issue before the court whether the human rights are and then stop or rises the commission toward punitive damages in appropriate cases i wish to direct the course attention to the second point whether the defendant's conduct in this face was sufficient to justify  damages and i want to emphasize that it was the cook county the appellate court appears to have held either that the conduct the issue was not sufficiently severe to justify committed damages or that the commission did not appropriate when the defendants found in the case fraud or actual malice deliberate violence or oppression or when the defendant acts willfully or with such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard for two thousand and six mrs boyd was physically and sexually accosted by her supervisor in another patron of the drinking establishment of which she work she repeatedly told the supervisor that she was that  conduct offended her and was disturbing to her and threatened her and nonetheless the supervisor persisted in the violent conduct i would submit that conduct of this nature which is violent which is oppressive which demonstrates actual malice and which certainly requests specifically requested i believe they were your honor and the commission awarded forty one thousand six hundred seventy dollars and and lost wages an additional five thousand dollars and now an economic buy compensatory damages that this is a damages for emotional distress and so forth and then the additional five thousand dollars in punitive damages and i think it's crucial to to look at the actual language of the commission used to justify as you know the damage outrageousness malice deliberate violence or oppression and any of the other formulations the sport has adopted to explain when punitive damages are appropriate moreover the commission did not simply make up all declaration that the conduct was if it was one incident it was a violent incident and both of them were involved in the violence so i think the facts of this case demonstrate outrageous conduct and that committee of damages were one one four eight seven six and one one for nine eleven jamie crittenden and all versus cook county commission on human rights at all it's are all taken under advisement agenda number fifteen mr marshall the