a sunday afternoon docket is number four das fifteen dash zero one five three daniel is it way daniel get way versus decatur memorial hospital caring for a fellow is place and how the facts of his case took place in this case raises the issue of whether a service department within an entity specifically enumerated in the illinois human rights act as a place of public accommodation circuit court would be would be reviewing the facts and evidence related to that kind of this case should be remanded to the supreme court so that mr nadler a maybe may have a trial by jury as to the first issue one zero six a six second the defendant called itself the regional medical center serving the residents of central illinois and third the nurse aunts the program is not a separate entity from the defendant as to the second issue i would like to raise a couple important points to the court today first of all the reports courts do not review academics incisions room i would bet he consider an academic the solution we we don't believe that it is an academic decision we believe it is more along the lines of a disciplinary decision and if you look at the procedures that the hospital allowed mr equates to proceed through prior to his dismissal they reflect more of disciplinary decisions and if the horowitz case that was cited i believe in the  about how in an academic decision a student is really not intitled to to due process but however on a disciplinary decision they are entitled to notice of the charges against them the training specialized area her you're on my my interpretation of the case law is that that type of analysis comes in when you're dealing with an entity that is not specifically enumerated as a place of public accommodation for example the board of trustees case that was cited in the appellee brief at the time of that case a place of education was not in the statute and the court said when when we're looking at at such a claim and that type of entity is not named in the statute then we have to look at whether that entity is similar to those entities that are named in the statute it is our belief that because in this case we are dealing with an entity that is named in this statute that that analysis when not doesn't necessarily need to come into play should we look at what it is that that entity does in other words what it purposes and who it regularly serves  hospital argues its place of public accommodation patients from seeding of medical services there perhaps those that read eating or cafeteria but here we're talking about an individual  who's undergoing a program training and therefore it's not a place of accommodation or for purposes of out of that program is that minister so what is the ultimate answer to that from  which it just that make sure i'm understanding your question you're asking should the court consider this service is being offered by the entity it is a place that the argument is i that the argument of the defense violates the intent of for example what would stop a patient from coming into the hospital and going into the cardio department and then someone in that party cardiology department department discriminate discriminates against that individual and someone and then that patient comes and files a discrimination claim against the hospital and the hospital says well there's qualification qualifications to get treatment in this department you know you have to have certain medical conditions pertaining to the heart and so on and so forth and we feel that if that argument is accepted you would exceptionally be able to take a take out most of the service departments within the hospital from the jurisdiction of that so then all you have left is like you said the cafeteria or the bathrooms or you know common areas such as those and we just don't believe if you look at what the intent of the act is to give all individuals freedom from discrimination public in places of public accommodation and the arlington heights racetrack case that was cited in the appellate brief said that this human rights act is a remedial statute in as such should be interpreted literally so our position is that that was not was not saying anything that a one ninety one b affidavit which flesh out more facts we know why mr it way when it was dismissed from this program which is shown in the transcript of the due process affidavit that says mr it way was dismissed for academic reasons it seems to be a conclusory statement in the absence of a motion to strike down the trial court rely upon a kind of like well what am i supposed to do with regard to the consideration of the affidavit at all it's my question well i think it i think it should be considered it was filed and it's on the record i just think that it has to be weighed against the other facts and i do think it needs to be considered because as you said it wasn't stricken but i think that based on the i guess i would say undisputed facts of how he was dismissed  that i think it is apparent that he this was really more along the lines of a disciplinary decision because it was based on his conduct and i think that really is out of the mouth of mrs g whose affidavit that  asked to the court not being required to review academic decisions we believe that the plaintiffs the pla allegations transform the issue of the adequacy of academic decisions into a nonacademic decision mr it way again was dismissed for bringing a medical style it into an trick in her transcript of the due process hearing the circuit court will not be required to review whether mr it way failed the test whether they gave mr ig way a test in tested him on the appropriate subject matter of circuit court would simply have to review the facts and the evidence as to whether mr equates conduct matches this allegation i e did he bring this metal object into an m r i so he was a charge be filed the that the statute says or us who have it's a civil rights violation for a person or two or more persons to conspire to retaliate against a person because he or retaliation claim but if you look at the retaliation claim under the statute it's in a whole separate article and that section that limits the jurisdiction on places of education specifically talks about section eight i believe it's a court it really takes the teeth out of just action you know the nurse asked is your program is not a separate entity from the decatur memorial hospital you know what would stop a hospital from saying this of another service department within the hospital as well qualifications to be of service and so and then the retaliation claim we think is the most obvious reason it should be remanded stiction because it will be called upon to review academic decisions i'd like to begin by pointing out that alan's has filed three separate complaints each of those complaints were verified because of the nature of  start out by reading the original complaint you will see that it is uncontested that appellant was a student in an academic program that was operated jointly by decatur morial hospital and bradley university and its program was designed to train students to see concert by registered nurse anesthetists and determine whether they were clinically dead and academically fit to pursue that career the retaliatory conduct as well as the discriminatory conduct of which the appellant complains is in the form of academic decisions they talk about this story he talks about receiving negative evaluations that weren't on did receiving negative evaluations when other similar so when other students received positive evaluations for similar things his complaint goes on and on about various conduct that was taken in retaliation for him complaining about other negative evaluations he received and he felt that he had received those negative valuations because of this race so whether it's the discriminatory conduct or the retaliatory conduct it will involve this court determining should this student have received a negative  valuation appellate makes the argument that this decision was really based on what i'll call the m r i incident where m once was and was that the basis for requesting dismissal of all three counts yes it seems to me that in reading the transcript of the hearing in the trial court that you went it would involve the courts first of all that's the nurse in a seizure program without a place of public accommodation and second of all the courts left your station here to review academic decisions and you may think this is state a claim and then later in the argument the same phraseology that the review of academic decisions is really a failure to state a cause of the state of claims so we're understand what you're saying your honor and i our position is that we are hearing that it's court that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to hear are first of all involved patient safety and if a person did this the m r i incident involved a situation where he was acting as an anesthesia provider and there are things that intoxicated showing up for work and he was let go under that same argument you could say well the student should know that he's not come to class or to the training intoxicated and therefore that's an it's it's a disciplinary matter as the appellant has raised this wasn't an issue about a student biting in the hallway this wasn't an issue about a student bringing a gun into a school this was a trained professional who was in the middle of a ca and was accused of bringing metal into an m r i suite students who are in this program who are going to be administering and the patients need to be aware of safety precautions whether they're dealing with medications as i mentioned  gauges and racial discrimination they can say let's assume that's true for them or they throw some stilton out for racial reasons we just decided we don't want to american student claims that he was graded harshly and should not have received a particular grade on a test because and he felt that he received that grade because he was african american that this race courts have specifically s whether it's the supreme court state courts circuit courts have said we do not review academic decisions we are particularly ill equipped to review those decisions because of the nature of the subjective nature of those academic decisions of a professor of a doctor saying recourse no you are in this situation if you look at the third amended complaint filed he alleges that he received a series of negative evaluations and then complained to the program director after complaining to the program that he felt he was being targeted because of his race then that retaliatory conduct occurred and that conduct consists of additional negative evaluations being placed on probation being graded on fairly and then finally  but had nothing to do with this claim here's the reasons why but what if this claim is true he gets no recourse because you can say i'm a university and i do stuff where i'm not that we don't believe it is but let's say that the court does consider that surplusage if we just look at the events that immediately preceded his dismissal from the program the m r i incident i still believe that that involves an academic careful to limit circumstances where it had jurisdiction over an educational program to three circumstances one being it it made it into the program or denial of admission into a program to denial of goods and services or three severe and pervasive harassment he obviously was admitted to the program so he's now complaining that he was denied admission to the nurse and seizure second he's not claiming that he was denied access to good services in the sense that you're denied access to you know classrooms or things like that back to the same point that this court would be asked to determine well that instructor shouldn't have given that student negative evaluation and here's why and it would involve the court putting itself in the role of the people who have been tasked to evaluate whether he is clinically or whether he is academically fit for this program and that to move on and become certified to provide anesthesia to patients and it would involve the court essentially substituting their judgment saying well you know i think you should have gotten a good evaluation on this particular  looking at the m r i incident which the appellant argued is a disciplinary matter it was actually a lapse in clinical judgment to bring metal into a room where it is restricted that it providing many clinical judgment should this patient receive this particular drug should this patient have whatever services are free and are necessary and although it may seem like i don't want to see triple it's not her bill but this was is and this would be in line with the here made it very clear that jurisdiction shall be limited when you're dealing with an educational program to certain areas and that's the same argument we made for the public accommodation claims that a public accommodation is something that provides goods or services to the public and that it's not what the anesthesia program is doing and because of that we can't even be considered a place of public accommodation so i do believe that the act when taken as a whole makes it clear the procedures of the american injury unless all war and those procedures or lack of procedures which are called for in a true academic decision defendant's own actions in this whole process reflect more of a disciplinary that the transcript was not provided to me until after the thirty many complaints so soon after the transcript of the hearing the due process transcript which is attached i believe to their reply on the third amended complaint that was not provided to me until that time when we were to file the reply and then also just to give context to the factual background of the whole situation well as you see it gets in the way of what it seems to claim of m r i that's report that would be an academic matter for the hospital university but we don't think it's an academic matter because it relates to his conduct uneconomic never forget about right it they should fire and maybe even be mistaken about it but it's an academic matter and you did nothing and i guess i'm not understand so you're what you're saying is that if it this was just only the m i incident there would be no pretext for discrimination yes yes yes and so i guess that is why some of that was in there to give it context to to show that he did bring up this discrimination issue to the director of the program prior to this happened and then this is not about saying that the rule that you can't bring a male into an m is an invalid rule which i think would get academic this is simply looking at the facts in the evidence or the lack thereof or whether of whether you brought something into an m r i so we don't believe that second and then finally th