the department of human rights on february sixteenth of two thousand and ten the letter told her that she could either go to the human rights commission with her findings of substantial evidence or she should or she could commence a civil action within ninety days she relied on the letter and chose to file suit in the circuit court account similarly ed walk ins about the same procedures and chose to file a case in this case doesn't come out of out of the woodwork the critical issue on the question of whether or not there's waiver of sovereign immunity is whether the legislature intended to impose liability upon the state not how or where the the several statutes and real annoying often several statutes under federal law for which there is a clear and unequivocal waiver and they were clearly aware of the legislature that feel humans rights act exists and they didn't say under real human rights act and under title seven of the civil rights act it says under the civil rights act right that section one point five be right one point five b was written four years before the legislature put in its right to go to the circuit court so if you're suggesting that illinois humans right in toto contains no waiver of sovereign immunity then the last thirty years  amendments which included a change structural change and where you feel requests from you and then this procedural change which i love when you go directly to the surface fourth which means the bill of rights mission case the human rights sack covers both that kind of claim here the legislature let's go back the legislature as you indicated re beginning is presumed  understand that what's what's occurred they understand that they passed four years earlier this this one point five d and that was to address a specific concern the legislature understood that human rights  included various and that actually broader than the federal idle seven rights to some of stat human rights eg allows suit for claims of sexual identity transgenderis legislature and we all know as many things that are not terribly comprehensible but first of all the only human rights act is based on and specifically incorporates section seven thousand nine hundred nineteen of article one of the decide whether to file under the illinois human rights act or title seven or both title seven never really came up title stuff which would mean a filing in federal  that since the current issue of the letter with the right so that that constitutes a waiver the corollary to that is that the partner before any litigation should  that procedure really does that make sense that this decision and the authority for the solution should be made on the basis of their own unilateral investigation but what the commission  section article and it says circuit what isn't part of the issue here that you're conflating the way they say you can go as an aggrieved person if you're a big boy by a private employer  with this applying to all people regardless of all course regardless of whether or not they're covered by sovereign immunity but you know that is not inaccurate for all the people who are employed by employers that are covered by the act who don't half suffer not sovereign immunity but if it what you're really saying is it's a tacit acknowledgement that sovereign immunity doesn't attach it is the attorney general's argument that would create two classes of employee in illinois it would create a class of employees for those employed by private individuals who could sue the circuit court and they would create a class of employees who happen to work for the there are there are differences between whether you're going to be suing the tribune for having its truck hit you or if you're going to be suing the state of illinois for instruction to give everything that type of distinction goes across so many different types of injuries because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity and he can't draw i don't think effect if we a conclusion that because employers writ large includes both private and public employers that somehow sovereign immunity is implicit we all use the word again implicit we waive in those circumstances because that would basically net a sovereign immunity has a as a probable doctrine which may be something that on a personal level makes sense to me but it's not what the law seems to say negligence cases are not the same as cases charging discrimination the public policy of the state and in the state constitution makes it very clear that they're not  all or are they referred to by the parties one one of the judges reference to gray's decision jeff left well in your brief you chose not to discuss these at all or in the reply please why i would just discuss these you know i can just tell you this from the standpoint of most of us who sit here when we find out about cases that seem to touch pretty close to our facts situations only when we leave the after we brief really took two problems at least of that ice the first is the statute of limitations issue because you didn't ninety days of the double e o c lot of the second could be sued if he bears other life liability under under either statutory or i'm off oh but what liability does the individual employee have here that you stands between you and the state to collect the damage by proof requiring this certification of your claim to act in accordance with is the statutory accordance with the statute but saying is not the case that says that and the more recent well the bottom line here is does one who's a victim of racial discrimination because the facts here are emitted as well pleaded having had a channel to see really and the fact of the about with you like it or not the nine hundred seventy constitution abolished the factory but don't forget that the factory historically comes from the same period of time we're killing the kings there was a capital offense for wh state in liability you have to explicitly raise your right to sovereign and that's what we're stuck with we're another branch of government stuck with the  put to the side and one of the bases for those waivers happens to be a loan by a governmental institution into believing that you have a right so but  department either go to the commission or the circuit court so people who work for private employers people who work for the county the city they have both options however because there was no expressway to recite in unity the people who are state employees can the human rights commission which they've always been able to do so they had nothing taken away they just weren't given this additional option that that most complaints work and really all that it's lacking is to deprive the ram of his that he doesn't equate to a clear and unequivocal waiver right it seems like he's sort of shifting his argument now in trying to argue with stoppel i didn't see any of that in the recent course the department of human rights is not a party considered not pursue that avenue and ms washy ten did not do it on one of the charges and on the other charge there's been no writes a letter that were aware of so there things are either time bar versus carter we look at the history and structure of the act and since the concept of sovereign immunity is based upon preservation of state funds from interference or seizure through the awarding monetary damages which is the old gross case ninety three illinois second three ninety seven for one our position is simply that if you look at human rights at which is it subjected the state to be awarded money damages and