case because all of the facts in the districts petition for writ of prohibition were verified specifically by multiple witnesses under oath and this and because we are here and undisputed facts standard review is you know more broadly view issues before this court is whether the city of decatur can exempt itself from a so called human rights ordinance but force the park district a co equal body of government with its own elected officials and its own police to par to participate in a hearing and then potentially have to pay money to the city of decatur expenses of the hearing and have to pay damages to a complainant attorney's fees and perhaps have equitable relief because the park district chief of police reported that employees commission of a crime it's it would seem to me that the public policy to the state of illinois that if someone is a big deal of a crime they ought to be able to reported to police and that the police ought to be able been approached refer that you be able to report problems that what does that have to do with why we're here your honor because we will know you were not at that point i don't know whether it's the public policy but i don't know that that's a question  granted and whether or not the city was be acting acting beyond the scope it's already we believe that that complaint down below should have been dismissed because proceeding against us would be against the public policy of the state of illinois  because of this felony charge i'm sorry i just think maybe you're not following but i doubt if i would get to the point of talking about the charge when you really want to talk about the interference of the city into the a i think there's two problems if i'm following your honor there's two proms one is that they have the city we contend has no jurisdiction to enforce this ordinance against us and two but the writ of prohibition even assuming there was jurisdiction ok if they're acting beyond their legitimate authority and the writ of prohibition also should have been granted and that's our position that the fed and the undisputed facts of this case have a done maliciously and there's cause of action for that i have not seen a case that says you can't have a retail you tory discharge action against a person the reports are crime but involves cases that say the public policy of the state of illinois discrimination claim hero cities briefly refer to it as a discrimination claim but it's now it's a retaliation claim and that's important for two reasons first we argue that under the undisputed facts there is no factual not say that it applies to claims for retaliation and that's what this claim is about so if the hope of the city's using to say we have jurisdiction is because we've got seven dash one away and i think that's what they're arguing here jointly he can form a local commission or a board and so we don't believe that under that statute the city has jurisdiction and if it has jurisdiction we don't believe it has the authority to enlarge the statute to include retaliation claims when it's limited to discrimination claims and it can enlarge it unilaterally exempt itself and so basically stick it to the park district to be arrested the undisputed back show if the park district actually consulted with council they considered their different options things that they could do in the power fistric affirmative decided the park district was not going to investigate this matter further so what's mr brewer to do he was a victim of a crime and park district property during part district time as he was doing his job as an employee eat what judge justice turner said i think it is irrelevant what happened after ms bates got arrested the state if this is the state's attorney or state's attorney a lack or any essay called the executive director and asked him now what would you think if i don't press charges i think that would be irrelevant to a claim of retaliation because i don't know if i said that i was trying to put that in for the question i understand what in your role but i understand why let me rephrase from conversation after the fact that did not harm her could result in a viable retaliation there would have to be some damages or some harm would follow from retaliation well counsel i do think it's because the park district pursuing the park road has its own police department so had the park district wanted to they could have arrested her but they chose not to do that instead they turned this over to another agency to make it so when you say using the term ch have a lab to board of commissioners they hire an executive director who's the chief executive the park code also expressly authorizes park districts to form a police force and the decatur park district has one and it's our position that the city is not the boss of our police chief and is not the boss of our executive director and can call upon the city can cause those people to answer to the city they answer to their own elected ordinance that requires joint action of governmental entities or their jurisdiction well so say having chief of police in the district is the district also had then prosecutorial powers it does your honor it doesn't have and i'm quoting here from section seven dash one away day provides that a political subdivision or two or more political subdivisions acting jointly may create a local department or commission as it or they see fit to promote the purposes of this act your honor i would suggest that the way to read that is that if one one jurisdiction can't unilaterally rule another one district is a body who are rich and politic ok i don't think that school districts can you know form their own police forces i don't think that they get to do that in a school district they only have jurisdiction only over their small round ok they've got bricks and mortar schools they've got the facilities that support the schools are districts are very different they have broad powers and authorities and they don't just serve the people in  school district they serve patrons at large from anywhere in the state so this is a park district affects patrons that are removed from the from the city of decatur and nothing to do with the city of decatur i could go to the zoo if the decatur park district i don't think that the city gets to regulate if i commit some human rights violation when i'm there i don't think that that extends there certainly i don't think they ought to be able to tell the park district what to do even if they could regulate invade the problems of the park district to perform the duties that they are expected to perform within the boundaries of the city you kate your honor i'm really not certain how much authority a city police officer has to go do something in a park district and know that there are intergovernmental agreements between park districts and local police department by the fire a gate let the super now your honor i i just don't know the answer to that question you know whether a city can come in to park district property whatever it feels like to make arrests under whatever ordinance they feel like are you i would you know your city code in terms of building specifications electrical work plumbing work i don't think so your honor and like depend on the case there's one supreme court case of there where a local government entity it was record pace was allowed one the illinois department of human rights to the evo seat there's an entire giant rubric of statutes that prohibit discrimination and retaliation we've got all of the  case a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy and it's only appropriate where the petitioner shows a clear right to the requested relief the  writ of prohibition to be issued to her has to show that the action to be prohibited is judicial or quasar judicial in nature that the jurisdiction of the tribunals against be issued is inferior to the issuing court and that the action prove to be prohibited is beyond the tribunals jurisdiction or beyond its legitimate a because it's failed to make a clear showing that the hater human relations commission lacks jurisdiction or that is ruling on the part district's motion to dismiss based on the affirmative defense of discretionary immunity is beyond the human relations commission sludge of an authority the decatur human relations commission has jurisdiction to consider complaints and preferred charges alleging retaliation for instituting a complaint of unlawful discrimination which is what happened here this is not a matter of retaliatory discharge that's not the facts the facts are the charging party for the human relations commission of decatur was destroyed by the park district it wasn't until after she was discharged that the that the facts giving rise to the retaliation arose and that is significant because as i said this is not a case of retaliatory discharge this is a case of retaliation retaliation is a is a prohibited conduct under both the state human relations act and there's decatur human relations act retaliation is anything that would tend to dissuade a party from making a claim of unlawful discrimination or participating in an investigation of unlawful and if there's a causal connection between the protected activity and the disadvantage disadvantageous action of the city i mean if it ever  facts facts verified pleadings facts well to do that the court ends up using its judgment to consider the facts rather than following what the general assembly said which is we're going to create a department of human rights and we're going to also delegate to that authority to the two local governments and in the end not only that but we're going to provide that that is charging parties exclusive remedy and so if the court is to consider the facts here on the verified pleading then it is yet essentially deprives the charging party of an opportunity to present history because this city and the district are not as council urges co equal units of local government the city has as not only a specific grant of authority under the human rights act  the specific grant of authority by the owner general assembly and the yes grant of authority by the b cater city council in acting to the unlawful discrimination section of the city code clearly establish authority and jurisdiction for the educator human relations commission to consider charges of discrimination have that in my binders i don't have it before me but i have a citation for that case  the not only does this decatur human relations commission of the already stem from the constitution be expressed and ackman to the general assembly and express and ackman to the decatur city council but it's been in over there said well the problem here is that the curious school district is not terminus with the city of your ia and to allow the city of your ia to exert this type of authority beyond its territorial boundaries would allow the city to exceed its authority implicitly suggesting that within the boundaries of the city of decatur peoria the city of curia may regulate complaints of discrimination including retaliation including complaints involving the school district now the thing about school districts and our district says they are not co equal units of local government because of a grant of home rule of the already similarly there are authorities there statutory grants of students when it comes to participate or get granted virtually plenary authority when it comes to establishing and regulating parks but there's nothing about employing people and treating them without unlawful discriminating against them that is that goes so to the core of either the education function or the park district and recreation function that suggests that dictators authority  to regulate unlawful discrimination should not apply to school districts for park districts there is there the court the finale of the human decatur human rights commission order is significant for the for the court to consider finale of judgments under supreme court rules may be viewed as a matter of judicial economy we don't want to burden appellate courts by having matters partially impartially in a trial court however it it takes on added significance when the tribunals that is that is below the inferior tribunals in this case the decatur human relations commission is  essentially a part of the executive function of the city to cater and the reason i say that is because it is part of the decay of the executive function it's kind of the flip of the a reading the illinois supreme court said department of labor you can't tell us who's judicial employees and who are not because that would you serve the authority of the judiciary and violates separation of powers well the finale of the decatur human relations commission order it's kind of the flip of that because to allow the park district to come to the court before there's a final decision of the administrative agency it is is it is a taishan to draw the courts into being too involved in the executive function because there is jurisdiction and because there is nothing about the human relations commission is that niall of the park district motion to dismiss faced on the the motion to dismiss before that the case or human relations commission including hearing on the merits and appeal of any adverse ruling and there's also sort of an extraordinary remedy that is available to them on major human relations ordinance and that is they could certify denial of their motion to dismiss as a matter that is subject under your hypothetical the it is not the act of the state's attorney that forms a basis for the retaliation it is the allegation that by the investigator that the director of the park district attempted to engage in bargaining discussions with the state's attorney doug or my hypothetical that would be considered as what to pain damages i say to me this whole thing i guess just doesn't logically make a lot of sense but i don't see an outcome if we will hear fade that could occur i a curb it could and i agree with that it certainly could occur that the human relations commission would find that the park district retaliated against the charging party and it similarly could occur that the state's attorney determined to charge the charging party and take her to trial and perhaps when a jury trial even on the charges are criminal charges he's dropping those are not that's correct that's correct and if she was still even if convicted be entitled to reinstatement orderly possibly of the images i don't know that she would be entitled i believe that that is a  a statewide human relations that is correct in the public policy underlying that is yet at least gives a bad appearance of having the  as an employee of the city in charge of the investigation and the commission of the city then passing on an investigation of city employee to avoid that appearance of the  the city is always in a position of saying well we're exam because we don't want to look bad that we're reviewing ourself i can't say whether that's a common practice or not without speculating i suspect that it would be because of the underlying policy but i cannot say thank you the state's attorney's office or the sheriff's eyes they should be arrested or prosecuted what was mr brewer to do the victim of a crime he had a right to report it was the police chief to do  was he to do with chief of police the person is good do not yes he could he could have told so to do so yes he he chose to do to go to the chief of police of the jurisdiction where the crime occurred that's true he did he did do that but he could have won another group he could have gone and complained to a prosecutor or a police officer somewhere else could if the city's interpretation of the statute describe it then the regulate the circuit court clerk's office in the city became the argument that the city raised by the exhaustion of administrative remedies that argument has has been rejected and it's in our it's in the lake county state's attorney versus illinois human rights commission case we prove here all of the elements required to obtain a writ of prohibition we established them all the first two were even contested whether or not this was a quasi judicial action whether or not the court was inferior whether or not we've seen would sustain your record will harm that disputed so the only question is does the city have jurisdiction to tell us what to do if they have all that authority then the park district code isn't all that we don't get to have the decision about whether to hire or fire employees or what we do with them or what happens when there's a crime property you don't get to make that decision it's a it's also good to review of the city of decatur and i think the parco says otherwise it doesn't provide for the city to be able to do any of that and certainly the human rights act doesn't allow for it they're not regulating the city's a recall rule is just that it's home it's not really in somebody else's home or somebody else's house and as far as ms bates ulan whether she would have any other remedies it's not like she's a person without remedies he eighty three that are constitutional rights were violated so she's certainly not a person without of other without any remedies the city doesn't want to talk about the facts but the facts are important and i hope the court will pay attention those facts because it's an interesting argument that if they they don't like heavy to our decisions they can come back and ask us to rehear a thing when we argued it the first time for our one and only action before this provision was to say we're not subject to your authority and if we were there is this still an oil law here that applies to us and you have to follow it instead of one sentence decision no no information contain know clear clearly they have ignored the tort of u t m and the hassle decision cited by this court really supports that these these folks at the park district now if if you believe that you know clevenger somehow has something to do with this of what his phone conversation is relevant at all these people are exercising their judgment and discretion there's no rule of law there's no ministerial actions that they're taking here here they are making