2020 IL App (1st) 192382-U

No. 1-19-2382 

Order filed July 10, 2020 

Fifth Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as 

precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIRST DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

ADJOA WILEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT 

SECURITY; DIRECTOR OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT 

OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY; BOARD OF 

REVIEW; and ADVANCED CARE SERVICES, INC., 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Appeal from the

Circuit Court of 

Cook County. 

No. 19 L 50516 

Honorable 

Daniel P. Duffy, 

Judge, presiding. 

JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Hoffman and Justice Delort concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The Board of Review’s dismissal of plaintiff’s appeal is affirmed where plaintiff 

did not appeal the claims adjudicator’s denial of unemployment benefits within 30 

days. 

¶ 2 Plaintiff Adjoa Wiley appeals pro se the order of the circuit court affirming the decision of 

the Board of Review (Board) of the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) that 
No. 1-19-2382 

- 2 - 

affirmed the dismissal of her untimely administrative appeal of a denial of unemployment 

benefits.1 Plaintiff argues that her administrative appeal from the denial of benefits was timely. 

We affirm.2 

¶ 3 On February 17, 2019, plaintiff filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits with 

IDES, claiming she was laid off by her employer, Advanced Care Services, Inc. (Advanced), due 

to lack of work. Advanced disputed plaintiff’s claim, arguing that plaintiff quit her job when asked 

to work “later hours” and failed to return after Advanced proposed she transfer to a facility that 

better fit her schedule. 

¶ 4 On March 18, 2019, following a phone interview with both parties, an IDES claims 

adjudicator ruled that plaintiff was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she “voluntarily 

left” her job for “personal reasons.” A determination was mailed to plaintiff on March 19, 2019. It

explained the claims adjudicator’s decision and informed plaintiff that if she wished to appeal, she 

must do so within 30 days. 

¶ 5 On April 19, 2019, plaintiff filed her appeal of the claims adjudicator’s decision. 

¶ 6 At a May 7, 2019 hearing on plaintiff’s appeal, the referee entered into evidence the claims 

adjudicator’s determination and plaintiff’s filing seeking an appeal. Plaintiff testified as to why 

her appeal was filed after the April 18, 2019 deadline. She faxed the appeal to IDES three times 

prior to the deadline, but “they told” her “they didn’t get it.” The facility from which she faxed the 

appeal could not provide her with a transmission receipt. Plaintiff called IDES many times to 

1 Because plaintiff’s notice of appeal lists the defendants as “Illinois Department of Employment 

Security, et al.,” we adopt the caption from plaintiff’s complaint. 

2 In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this 

appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order stating with 

specificity why no substantial question is presented.
No. 1-19-2382 

- 3 - 

confirm receipt of the appeal, but was told to call back later. She then filed the appeal in-person 

on April 19, 2019. The referee then explained that because she could not provide confirmation that

the appeal was faxed by April 18, 2019, her appeal would be dismissed. The referee informed 

plaintiff that she could appeal to the Board and provide additional evidence. The referee issued a 

written decision and mailed it to plaintiff on May 8, 2019. 

¶ 7 On June 5, 2019, plaintiff filed an appeal with the Board. In the request for reconsideration, 

plaintiff represented thatshe faxed the appeal of the adjudicator’s decision twice on April 15, 2019, 

but had an “incorrect fax” number. In an attached letter, plaintiff said that she sent the fax on April 

15, 2019, and called IDES that day to confirm, but was told to call back later. She called IDES

twice on April 17, 2019, but was told by a “representative” that she should call back later on each 

occasion. On April 18, 2019, plaintiff called IDES and asked if there was an office she could use

to send a fax, and was told to go to an office at 1700 West 18th Street. Plaintiff went to that address, 

where a “gentleman” assisted her with faxing her “paper work.” 

¶ 8 Plaintiff sought to admit additional evidence before the Board. The evidence included 

phone records and a letter purporting to be from Mid-South American Job Center (Mid-South) 

reading, “On April 15, 2019, Adjoa Wiley submitted a fax to Springfield Illinois Department of 

Employment Security at (217) 557-4913, from our Resource Center fax machine. It is uncertain 

[w]hether the fax was transmitted successfully, as our fax machine does not provide confirmation 

Receipts.” The letter was unsigned but included the business card for Cassie Vinson, Mid-South’s 

associate director.

¶ 9 On August 1, 2019, the Board issued a decision affirming the referee’s decision to dismiss

plaintiff’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Board found that IDES mailed plaintiff the claims 
No. 1-19-2382 

- 4 - 

adjudicator’s determination on March 19, 2019, such that her appeal was due on April 18, 2019, 

but that she did not file the appeal until April 19, 2019. The Board rejected plaintiff’s argument 

that she faxed the appeal within 30 days because plaintiff had no confirmation document or other 

supporting evidence. In so ruling, the Board noted that the Administrative Code provides that an 

individual sending documents by fax bears the risk of an unsuccessful transmission. See 56 Ill. 

Adm. Code 2712.1 (2019). The Board refused to consider plaintiff’s additional evidence because 

she “failed to certify in writing that such request was served upon the employer.” 

¶ 10 On August 23, 2019, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint for administrative review of the 

Board’s August 1, 2019 decision. On November 20, 2019, the circuit court entered an order

affirming the Board’s decision. 

¶ 11 On appeal, plaintiff reiterates her argument that she faxed her appeal of the claims 

adjudicator’s decision on April 15, 2019, but was not provided a transmission receipt, and requests 

a new “hearing” or “interview.”

¶ 12 In an appeal from the denial of unemployment benefits, “[w]e review the final decision of 

the Board, rather than the decision of the referee or the circuit court.” Petrovic v. Department of 

Employment Security, 2016 IL 118562, ¶ 22. When, as here, the underlying facts are undisputed, 

the timeliness of an appeal presents a question of law that we review de novo. People ex rel. 

Madigan v. Illinois Commerce Comm’n, 2014 IL 116642, ¶ 8; see also Goodman v. Ward, 241 Ill. 

2d 398, 406 (2011). 

¶ 13 Following the denial of unemployment benefits, a claimant wishing to appeal the decision 

must file an appeal within 30 days from the date the decision is mailed to the claimant. 820 ILCS 

405/800 (West 2018). This is a mandatory provision that acts as a statute of limitations. Hernandez 
No. 1-19-2382 

- 5 - 

v. Department of Labor, 83 Ill. 2d 512, 517 (1981). The 30-day deadline must be “strictly” 

complied with and “the statute does not confer additional authority on the Board to entertain 

appeals beyond the 30 days after a decision has been mailed.” Thompson v. Department of 

Employment Security, 399 Ill. App. 3d 393, 395 (2010). 

¶ 14 A claimant may file an appeal of the claim adjudicator’s decision via fax. 56 Ill. Adm. 

Code 2712.1 (2019). The date on the transmission “confirmation document *** may be presented 

as evidence of successful transmission and filing,” and the “individual *** filing a document by 

telefax transmission bears the risk that the transmission will not be successful.” Id. 

¶ 15 Here, there is no dispute that the notice of the adjudicator’s decision was mailed to plaintiff

on March 19, 2019; that her administrative appeal was due on April 18, 2019; and that her appeal 

was not received by IDES until April 19, 2019. Because these operative facts are not in dispute, 

whether her appeal was faxed in a timely fashion is a matter of law that we review de novo. See 

Goodman, 241 Ill. 2d at 406 (“where the historical facts are admitted or established, but there is a 

dispute as to whether the governing legal provisions were interpreted correctly by the 

administrative body, the case presents a purely legal question for which our review is de novo”).

¶ 16 Based on this record, we affirm the Board’s decision that the referee did not have 

jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s appeal because she did not file it within the mandatory 30-day period. 

We acknowledge that plaintiff’s appeal was only one day late, but the law is unequivocal that this 

is a jurisdictional requirement and neither the referee nor the Board has discretion to relax the 

deadline. See Thompson, 399 Ill. App. 3d at 395. Plaintiff’s argument that her appeal would have 

been received on April 15, 2019, absent issues with the fax process must also fail because the law 

is clear that a claimant seeking to file an appeal via fax assumes the risk that the transmission will 
No. 1-19-2382 

- 6 - 

fail, and plaintiff provided no confirmation that her fax was sent on April 15, 2019. See 56 Ill. 

Adm. Code 2712.1 (2019).

¶ 17 We note that the Board decided not to consider the additional evidence plaintiff attempted 

to submit. On an appeal from the referee’s decision upholding the denial of unemployment 

benefits, an appellant may request that the Board consider additional evidence beyond what was 

presented at the earlier proceedings. 56 Ill. Adm. Code 2720.315(c) (2019). The appellant must 

certify that he or she served the request on the opposing party. Id. Here, plaintiff does not argue 

that she served the request on Advanced and so certified to the Board, and there is no certification 

in the record. Accordingly, the Board’s decision not to consider plaintiff’s additional evidence was 

appropriate. 

¶ 18 For the foregoing reasons, the Board’s decision is affirmed.

¶ 19 Affirmed.