SECOND DIVISION DATE: Decem

ber 26, 2007 No. 1-07- 0112 SMRJ, INC., d/b/a Four Boys L abor Servi ce, Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t,
v. BR E ND A RU SS E LL , Dir ec t o ro f t he I llino is Dep ar t ment o f Employment Sec ur ity, a nd THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF EMP LOY MEN T S EC URI TY , a nd A dm i ni stra ti ve A ge nc y of the State of Ill i noi s, a nd JO SEP H N

UN ES, th e D i rector of t he I lli nois D epa rt ment o f Employment Security 's Repres entative, Defendan ts-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) APPEAL FROM THE

CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY

No. 05 L 50885

THE HONORABLE ALEXA NDER P. WHITE, JUDGE PRESIDING.
JU STI CEHO FFMA

N del i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: The pl ai ntif f , SMR J, In c., d/b /a Fou r Boy s L ab orSer

vi ce(SMRJ ), a ppe al s f rom an orde r of t he cir cu it co ur t affir mi

ng a fina l ad minist r at ive de cis io n iss ue d b y t he Dir ec t o ro f t he I llino is Dep ar t ment of Em

ploym en t Securi ty (th e Di rector). Fo llowing an au dit of S MRJ’ s une mployment in surance contributi ons f

or 1999, t he Di

rector found that 1,350 worke rs wh o p erforme d servi ces pursuan t to refer ral s by SMR J we re empl oyees rather t han i

ndependent contr acto rs. Th e D i rector also found that SMRJ was li abl e for a tot al

of $95,159.16, inc ludi

ng $58,264.41 in

unpai d
un em pl oy men t i n su ra n ce con tri b uti on s, pl us$3 6,8 94 .75 i

n sta tutor y i n terest. On appeal , SMRJ contends that (1) it was den ie d due pr oc ess a nd a fair hear ing beca use t he Directo r’s re pr ese nt at ivewho co nduc t ed t he admi ni strat iv e hearin g was bi ased agains

t its interests, (2) i t wa s n ot th e em pl oy er of th e s ub j ec t wor kers , (3 ) i ts pay men ts to the su

bj ect worke

rs we re notNo. 1-07- 0112

2

wages, (4 ) t he su bject wo rk er s we re indepe nd en t contr actors and were exem pt from coverage pur sua nt to section 212 of the Unem

ploy me nt Insurance

A ct (t he Act) (82 0 ILCS 405/2 12 (West 19 98) ), (5 ) the doctr

i n e of eq ui tab l e e sto pp el

pr ec l ud ed th e D ep ar

tmen t f rom en f orc i n g i ts de term i na ti on and as ses sm

en t and f rom c oll ecti ng s tatutory i nte res t on t he unp aid co nt ribut ions, and (6) the ci rcuit court err ed i

n en tering a monet ar y judgment and misca lculat ed t he amo unt of statutory int er es t o we d. Fo rt he r ea so ns t ha t fo llo w, we affir m. Fo llowing an

au di t con duc ted i n 2 001 , th e D ep artm

en t i ss ue d a de term i na ti on and a sses sment finding t hat SMR J had failed t o p ay $58 ,2 64. 41 in u nemployment insurance tru st fund c ont ribut ions f or1999 and that i

t was li abl e for $26,744.95 i

n s tatutor y i nte res t. SMRJ f i l ed a p rotest an

d pe ti ti on f orhe ari ng, con te ndi ng that the audi

to r had cl assifi ed m any in div idua ls as SMRJ em

ploy ees whe n they should have been

cl assifi ed as i ndepen dent contracto rs, whose wages sh ould not have

been count ed against SMRJ. An administr at ive hear ing was co nduc t ed by t he Director’s representativ e, Joseph Nunes. At the heari

ng, SM RJ cal l ed two w i tne ss es . Bog da

n D obr zy ns ki , th e D ep artm

en t f i el d a udi tor who pe rf orm ed the 200 1 a udi t, testi f i ed excl us i ve l y ab ou t t he ci

rcumstances of the ex

it i nterview perf orm ed at th e c on cl us i on of th e a udi t. Louis A

dle r, SMRJ’s accountant, testif ie d re gar ding t he company’sbusiness pr act ices and t re at ment of t he wo rk er s t hat wer e t he su bject of t he au dit . N one of t he f our b roth ers wh o own ed SM RJ tes ti f i ed , n ordid a

ny of the 1,350 workers whose status was at issue
. Adl er testifi ed that he wa s emplo yed by an indep ende nt accountin g fi rm an d had perf ormed
acc ou nt ingservi

ces f or SMRJ sin

ce 1990. He stated t hat SMRJ ref erredworkers to compan

ie s thatNo. 1-07- 0112

3

advi sed SM RJ tha t the y we re i n n ee d of l ab or er s. Accordin

g to Adl er, SMRJ was n

ei ther an employment ag en cy n o ra t emp o r ar y emp lo ymen t ag en cy, al though he di

d not know whether it had
a l i cense to opera

te as a tem porary em

ploy me nt agency. When

workers came to SMRJ, they compl eted and si

gned a docum

en t pr ep ar ed

b y SM RJ an d en ti tl ed “ A pp l i ca ti on f or El i gi b i l i ty Veri f i cation.” The “ A ppl i ca ti on f orEligibili

t y Verificat ion” inc lud ed sp ac es fo rt he wo r ke rt o pr o vid e b as ic informat ion, such as

his or her n am e, addr es s, da

te of b i rth , a n d s oci al se cu ri ty n um b er . B el ow th at, it ha d s pa ce s t o fill in

the nam e of an aut hor ized S MRJ r epr ese nt at ive and fo r t he wo rk er t o s ign and date t he f orm. The do cument al so st ated as follows: “By si gn i ng thi s a gre em en t, I here by atte st th at the i nf orm ati on [I] am pr ov i di n g w i th th i s state m en t (P h otoc opi

es on b ac k) i s a

ccur ate an d t rue . I ce r t ify, under pena lties of pe rj ury , th at m y tax pa yer i de nti f i ca ti on nu mbe ris co rr ec t ly sho wn a bo ve. I c er t ify that I am not subj ect to withh oldi ng. I a lso a gr ee t hat I w ill

be t re at ed a s an I ndep ende nt Contracto r and that all fi nan ci al responsi bi li ties (Fe deral a

nd State t axes) wi

ll rest upon me. I al so understand that there wil l b e a servi

ce fe e taken

out of pay

each an d e ve ry t ime I work. I als o un de r st an d t ha t I will r ec eiv e n o fr ing e b en efit s a nd I will a lso be pa id a ce r t ain fee for the servi

ces I re nder dep ending o n t he amo unt of ho ur s t hat I w ill wo rk at t he di scre tion of the com

pan y I wil l work at, not FOUR

BOYS LA

BOR SERVIC E.”No. 1-07- 0112

4

Adl er testifi ed that the servi ce fee m

entione d in this ag re ement was a r efer ra l fee co llecte d by SMRJ. He further sta ted t hat SMRJ exerci sed no c ont ro l over t he wo rk er s it r efer re d and had no
r ela t io nsh ip wi

th t he workers. The worker s were f ree to choo se whether they would perf

orm servi ces pur sua nt to a ref

erral , a nd any nec essa ry mat er ials, su pplies, t oo ls or equ ipment wer e given t o t he worker by

the re f erred com pan y . Al thou gh the wor kers received their pay from SMRJ, they

were not p rovided paid vacations or sick l eave, pensi on benef

its, or bonuses. Acco rd ingt o Ad ler, SMR J kne w no t hing abo ut t he ind ividua ls t hey refe rr ed, ot her t han t he ba sic informat ion o n t he “App licatio n for Eligibili t y Verificat ion” fo rm, a nd he was not sure whether SMRJ ma in taine d a fi le for each worker. Adl

er stated that, when a worker came in seeki ng work, SMRJ wo uld giv e t ha t pe r so n a ch o ice o f se ve r al c o mpa nie s he o rshe co uld work for, and i t was up to th e w ork er

to de ci de wh eth er to pursue working f

or any of those compani

es. Wh en the Direct or ’s
re pr ese nt at iveasked

how SM RJ b eca me awa re tha t comp an i es n eede d worker s, Adl er sa

i d tha t there
were some com

pani es thatwereal

wa y s l ooki n g f or w ork er s. In

re sp on se to an i nqui ry ab out what typesof compan

ie s were i nvol ved i n these ref

errals, A dle rme n tioned manuf

actur in g compani es, chem ic al co mpanies, and ir on c omp anies. Adler spe cified o nly m achine o per at or s and fo r k- li ft oper ato rs as exampl

es of jobs f

or which SMRJ provided referrals
. Wh en asked how SMRJ kn

ewthat a worker had accepted work pursuant t o a referral , Adler stated t ha t t he clie nt co mp an y s en t a r ep ort t o SM RJ , bu t he wa s u na ble t o pr o vid e s pe cific i nf orm ati on about the contents o f s

uch reports. Adler sai

d, “I gue ss it co nt ains t he name o f the pe rs on and the am ount of tim e tha t they worked.” He al so stated that the reportmigh t be se nt da ilyNo. 1-07- 0112

5

orwe ek ly, d ep en din g o n ho w mu ch t ime the in div idua l pe rformed s ervices for the compan y. W hen asked i f the rep ort i nc l ude d the n

um be r of hou rs the pe rs on had worked, Adler

resp onde d, “ I gues s.” The Dire ct or ’s r epr ese nt at ivein quired ab out whet her t he r epo rt co nt ained t he ho ur ly amount that t he pe rso n had e ar ned, and A dler res pon de d, “ I don ’t th i nk so.” W he n asked how SMRJ kne

w wh at to pay

each w orker, Ad

l er i ni tia l l y an swe red that SMR

J wa s ad vised i n the report

of th e r ate that had been

determi ned by the cl i en t com pa ny . He l ate r testi f

i ed , howe ve

r, that he di d n

ot know whether th

e re port c onta

i ne d the w orke

r’ s h ourl y rate of pay. The Director’s representativ e asked what oth er i n f orm ati on th e r ep ort c on

tai n ed , but A

dl er sa i d th at he di d not know. Upo n f

urther questioni ng, Adl er st at ed t ha t he did not kno w whe t her t he r epo rt co nt ained t he wo rk er ’s name a nd soci al sec uri ty n um ber. Adl er further tes ti f i ed tha t he di d n ot kn owhow muc

h of eac h worker’s pay

SMRJ recei

ved
as a referral

fee, an d he was un

sure whether

SMRJ’s fee was based o n a percent age o f the wo rker ’s wages. Accordin

g to Adl er, the cli ent compan

y de termi ned the rate of pay

for each worker refe

rred by SMRJ. Yet , he did not know ho w a cli ent company b ecame aware that SMRJ had r efer re d t he worker. Adl

er stated t hat SMRJ di

d not have an

y c ontract s wi

th the cl ie

nt compan

ie s to which workers we r e r efe rr ed
. He t es t ified t ha t SM RJ did no t r ec eiv e a ny p ayme nt fr o m a client c omp any that per manent ly hi

re d a w or ker t hat had be en r efer re d by SMR J. Acco rd ing t o Ad ler, if a comp any compl ai ned ab o ut a w o r ke rt ha t SM RJ r efe rr ed , t ha t wo r ke rwo uld not be se nt t o t he sa me co mpany aga in. Adl

er al so testif

i ed ab out a conv

ersa tion that he h ad i

n 19 93 wi

th Ma ry El le n Voigt , a Dep ar t ment audi

tor who perf

orme d an audi t that y ear. Ac cordi

ng to Adl er, Vo igt st at ed d ur ing t heNo. 1-07- 0112

6

au dit that she was very

pleased that t he company was able to refer so many people to companies so they co uld be kep t off

the u nem ploym en t role s. The h eari

ng was then

adj ourne d so tha

t an e f f ort
co uld be mad e to f i nd Voi gt due to the h

ea rs ay na ture of Adler ’s t est imony abou t t his co nver sat ion. The hear ing

was resum

ed after i t was de t er mined t ha t Vo igt co uld no t be lo ca t ed
. Ad ler ag ain stated th at V oi gt h

ad tol d h i m du ri n g th e e x i t i n ter v i ew f or th e 1 99 3 a udi t t hat t he compan

y was do inga very

good job of keepi

ng workers off

the unem ploy me nt roles by fi

nding t hem employment through the referral

serv i ce. A ccordi ng to Adl er, Voigt als o said that she did n ot fi nd an y di screpancy i n th e p roc ed

ur es th at S MR

J h ad f oll owe d, a

n d h e r el ay ed th i s i n f orm ati on to hi s c l i en

t. Adl er furt her st at ed t est ifi

ed t hat t he 199 9 un

em pl oy men t i ns ura nc e c l ai m of a worker name d Me lvin Ri ddle s had b een den

ie d on the basis that Riddl

es wasnot an

em ploye e of SMR J. Acco rd ing to Ad l er, Ri ddl es ’ c l ai m f or un em pl oy men t be ne f i ts h ad trigge red the De pa rtm en t’s au di t of SMRJ for 1999. The Dire ct or ’s r epr ese nt at iveissued a r eco mmended d ecisio n, st at ing t hat t he de term i na ti on and as se ssmen

t sh oul d b e u ph el d w i th an as se ssmen

t of sta tutor y i n terest. SMR J filed exce pt ions to t he recom mended decision, as sert ing , in ter alia , that t he Di

rector ’s represen

tative was bia sed. On A ug ust 18 , 20 05 , the D i

re ctor i ss ue d h er de cisi on up h ol di n g th e dete rm i n ati on an d a ss es sm en t. The Dire ct or re

ject ed t he ar gument that the wor kers were employees of its clien t co mpan ies, rathertha n of SMRJ. In reach

in g this concl usi on, the Director particula rly noted that S MRJ suppl

ie d workers upo n re que st s fro m its client s, w ho paid SMRJ di rectly. The Di

recto r also noted that S MRJ appri sed i tself of the n um ber of h ours worked b

y each w orker an

d then pa i d the i ndi vi dual workers after collectin

g its fee, whi

ch was based on a percentage o f the worker s’ wages.No. 1-07- 0112

7

The Dire ct or next fou nd t hat SMRJ h ad no t sho wn t hat t he wo rk er s we re indepe ndent contractors and, theref

ore, exempt

under secti on 212 of the A ct (820 IL CS 40 5/212(We st 1998 )). S pe cif ica lly, the Di rectorde term

i ne d that SM

RJ ha d n ot shown a l

ack of control and di

rection over t he subjec t wo rk er s, a s re quir ed byse cti on 21 2A (8 20 IL CS 40 5/

21 2A (West 19 98 )) a

n d f ai l ed to
su st ain i ts b urden un de r s ec ti on

212B, which m

andates that the worker pr ovid e se rvices ou t side t he usual co ur se o f t he emp lo ying un it ’s bu sine ss o ro ut sid e o f all o f t he emp lo ying un it ’s pl ac esof bus i ne ss (8 20 IL CS 40 5/212 B (West 199 8)). In add itio n, t he Dir ect or det er mined t hat SMR J had failed t o s at isfy sect ion 2 12C , w hi c h
ma ndates t ha t t he wo r ke r s be en ga ge d in in dependently

establi shed trades, occupat ions, pro fessi ons,
orbusiness es. In r eac hing t his co nclusio n, t he Dir ect or co nsider ed t he factors se t for t h in the ap plic ab le Departmen

t regulation (56 Ill . Adm

in . Code § 2732.200(e)) and f ound that t he sub

je ct workers had no pro prietary i

nterest in any in dependent busi

ness b ut we

re tota l l y depe nd en t upon SMRJ t o o bt ain wo rk wit h SMR J’s c lientcom pa ni es . In the ab senc e of

evi dence that the i

ndi vi dual workers performe d servi

ces for other busi

ness entities, the Di

rector determi

ned thatt he wo r ke r s d id not ha ve i nte res ts i n b us i ne ss estha t we re n ot subj ect to cancel

la tion or destruct ion upon s everan ce of t he r ela t io nsh ip with SM RJ. The Di

rector noted that t he record contain ed no evi dencet hat any of the s ubj ect worke

rs had a sh

op or off ic e of his o r he r o wn, adve rt ised o r p ro vided s er vices t o t he pu blic at l

arg e, m ai nta i ne d a bu si ne ss l i sti ng i n a tel ep hon e di rectory ortrade journal, had an invest ment i

n a ny capi tal goods wh

i ch could ha ve be en use d i n operating a

bu si ne ss en terpri se , or gai ned the profi

ts and bore the losses of a busi ness en t er pr ise
. Ba se d o n t he ev ide nc e c o nt ain ed in t he re co rd , t he Dir ect or fou nd t hat none of t he sub j ect worke

rs we re indepe ndent ly esta blished in aNo. 1-07- 0112

8

busi ness an d th at S MR J h ad f ai l ed to meet its burden of proo f under section 212C (820 ILCS 405/2 12C (W

est 199 8)). Fi na l l y , th e D i rectorrejected SMRJ’s content ion that stat uto ry i nterest under section 1401 of the Act sh

ould be wai ved un der t he do ct rine of e quit able est op pel bas ed o n st at ement s made by Voigtdur ing t he 1993 a udit. The Direct or not ed t hat Adler’s testi mon y con cern i n g th es e state men ts had no evi

den tia ry value be cau se it was hear say. Fu rt her mor e, t he Directo r o bserved t hat Vo igt’s st at ement tha

t SM RJ wa s p erf orm i ng a g ood dee d by he lpin g t he wo r ke r s g ain emp lo yment co uld be true, r egardle ss of wh

ether the workers were class if ie d as em pl oyee s or i nde pen den t contractors under section 212 of

the A ct. The Direct or f oun d th at V oi gt’ s rem

ar ksdi d n ot i n du ce SM RJ to chan ge its treatmen

t o f the s ubj ect workers so t hat it i

ncurred a gr eat er liabil

ity for co nt ribut ions a nd i n terest. To the con

trary , the re cord

cl early establ is hed that SMRJ cl

assifi ed the subj ect worker s as in dependent cont racto rs bot h bef ore and after Voigt allegedl y m ade these remarks. SMRJ subs eq

uen tl y sou gh t j udi ci al re v i ew of th e D i re ctor ’s de cisi on . Th e c om pl ai n t fo r administr at ivere view include d a d ue p ro ces s claim, bas ed o n allegat ions t hat Nune s was f oun d to have been biased in an unr elat ed c ase . T he co mplaint also asse rt ed t hat t he De par t ment s hou ld be eq uit ab ly es toppe d f

rom col l ec ti ng sta tutory i nte res t on t he unp aid co nt ribut ions. Fo llowing br iefing and ar gument s, t he circ uit co ur t affirmed t he Dir ect or ’s final administr at ive dec ision o n t he merit s and rejected SMRJ’s due pro cess and estopp el argum ents. The Dire ct or t hen filed a mot ion fo r r eco nsider at ion, re que st ingth at the co ur t t o g ra nt add itional relief under section 3-111(a)( 8) o f the Adm in istrative Revi

ew Law (735 ILCS 5/3
- 111(a)(8) (West 20 06 )) b y en ter i n g a j udgm en t o f $95,159 .16 , re

pre senti ng the am oun t due f romNo. 1-07- 0112

9

SMRJ, in cl udin g statut ory i

nterest. Over

SMRJ’s obje ction, the ci

rcuit court entered judgm

ent in that
am ount again st SMRJ. Thi s appeal fol lowed. On appea l , S MRJ a rg ues t hat it w as d epr ived o f the right t o d ue p ro ces s du ring t he administr at ivehearing because t he Directo r’s repr es en tati v e w as b i as ed ag ai n st i ts inter est s . We find this argumen t unpersuasi

ve. I t is fir mly

establ is hed t hat co ncep t s o f due pr oc ess a pply t o bo t h co ur t s and administr at ive agenci es that perf

orm a dj udicatory

f unc tions. Gi rot v . K ei th , 212 Ill . 2d 372, 380, 818 N.E .2d1232 (2004 ); Arvi

a v. Madi gan , 209 Ill . 2d 520, 540, 809 N.E .2d 88 (2004). T he req uir eme nt s o f d ue pro cess in judi cial pro ceedings di

ff er from those admin

istrative proceedings, which ar e simpler a nd less f orma l and tech ni cal
. Dani el s v. Police Board , 338 Ill . App. 3d 851, 860, 789 N.E. 2d 424 (2003 ). Due pr oc ess in an a dministr at ivepr o ce ed ing is s at isfie d b y a “ ‘ pr o ce du r e t ha t is suit able and proper to the nature of the determi nation to be m

ade and conf

orms to fundam

ental princi ple s of j ustice.’ ” Comi

to v. Poli ce Boar d , 31 7 I ll. App. 3d 6 77, 687 , 7 39 N .E .2 d 94 2 ( 200 0) , q uo t ing Telcs er v. Holzm an , 31 Il l . 2d 332 , 339, 20 1 N.E.2d 370 (1 964). Tha t pr oc edu re must include t he opp ortu n i ty t o be hear d, t he r ight t o c ro ss- examine ad ver se w itnes ses, and impar t ial rulings o n t he
evi den ce. A br ah am son v. Ill i noi s D ep ’t of Professi onal Re gul ati on , 153 Ill . 2d 76, 95, 606 N.E .2d 1111 ( 19 92 )
. Also , as in

judi ci al proceedin

gs, due process requires tha t admi ni strative proceedi

ngs be ad ju dic ated by

ani m partial trib una l
. Gi rot , 21 2 Ill. 2d at 380 ; Coll ura v. Board of Police Com m i ssi oners , 113 Ill . 2d 361, 369, 498 N.E .2d 1148 (1986)
. Yet, “ ‘[a] me

re possib il ity of prej udic e i s i

nsuf fi ci ent to show t hat

an ad m i ni stra ti ve de ci si on
ma ker was bi ased
. ’ ” Da nie ls , 338 Ill . App. 3d at 862, quo ting Coll ura , 1 13 I ll. 2d a t 370 . I n t heNo. 1-07- 0112

10

absen ce of a s ho win g t o t he co nt r ar y, state admi ni strato rs are assum

ed to be in div idua ls of consci ence
an d i nte l l ec tua l

di sc i pl i ne , ca pa bl e of j udgi ng a p arti cul ar c ontr

ove rs y f ai rl y on the basis of i

ts own circumstances. Ar via , 20 9 I ll. 2d at 541 ; A br ah am son , 153 Ill .2d at 95. Thu s, “ ‘ [t ]o pr ove bias, t he pl ai nti f f m us t ove rcom e a pre su m ption of h onesty b y showi ng i n the rec ordt hat t he ad mini st ra t ive proceedin gs were ei ther tainted

by di shonesty or c ontai

ne d an una cce ptab l e ri sk of

bi as.’ ” Gi rot , 212 I ll. 2d at 380-81, quot in

g Huff v. Rock I sland Count y Sherif f’s Merit Comm’n , 294 Ill . App. 3d 477, 481, 68 9 N.E.2d

1159 ( 1998)
. Here, the re cord

doe s not suppo rt SMRJ’s co ntent ion that the Direct or ’s representative was bi ase d aga i nst itsi ntere sts. To th e c on

tra ry, the r ep ort of

pr oce ed i n gsre f l ec ts that Nunes al

lowed SMRJ to in tro duce any

evi dence that i

t wish ed to presen t. Indeed, Nunes cont in

ued the hearing so
an eff ort could b e m

ade to locate Vo igt an d d et er mine w het her she wo uld be a vaila ble t o t es t ify
re gar ding her findings and c omment s abo ut t he pr eviou s au dit . I n add itio n, when it wasdetermi

ned t ha t Vo igt co uld not be loc at ed, Nune s pe rmitt ed S MRJ t o p re sent Ad ler ’s t es t imo ny r eg ar din g h is
rec ol l ec ti on

of Voi gt’ s c om men ts. A l so, S MR J’ s r ef ere nc e to a prior, unr elat ed c ase in which the Di rectorand the rev

ie win g court found that Nunes

had f ai l ed to conduct the heari

ng i mpa rtially does
n ot e st ablish tha t he wa s biased in this ca se. The re is no indica t ion in t he r eco rd t hat t he hea ring conducted in

the prior case h

ad any connecti on to or im

pact on the heari

ng i n thi s case. We wi ll not presume that

t he Dir ect or ’s r epr ese nt at ivewa s b i as ed , an d the re cord

doe s n ot refl ect th at S MR

J w as den i ed th e ri gh t to a heari

ng be fore a neutral

tribun al . Accordin

gly , we reject SMRJ’s unsubstantiated clai m that it was deprived of due process.No. 1-07- 0112

11

We nex t address SM

RJ’s cha l l en

geof the Di rector’ s dec i si

on th at i t wa s l i ab l e f or unemplo yment

in surance contri

butions based on t he se rvices per for med by t he su bject wo rk er s. T he de term i na ti on of w hether workers a

re em ploye es or i

nde pen den t contractorsunder the Ac t inv olve s
a m i x ed qu esti on of l aw an d f ac t. Carpetlan

d U.S.A., Inc. v . Il

l i n oi s D ep ’t o f

Em pl oy men t Se cu ri ty , 201 I ll. 2d 3 51, 369 , 77 6 N. E. 2d 1 66 ( 200 2); AFM Messen ger Servi ce, Inc. v. D ep’ t of E mployment Se cu ri ty , 19 8 I ll. 2d 3 80, 392 , 76 3 N .E.2 d 27 2 (2 001 ). C ons eq ue ntl y , th e D i rector’ s dec i si

on in t his case wi ll be set asi de only if it i s clearly

erroneous. See Carpetlan d U.S.A., Inc. , 20 1 I ll. 2d at 369; AFMMess enge

r Se r vice, Inc. , 1 98 I ll. 2d a t 391 -9 2. In r eviewing a mixed que st ion, t he administr at iveage ncy’s de cision mus t be accepted unl ess the cour t is “ ‘l ef t wi th the def i ni te and f i rm
con vi cti on th at a mi stake has b een com

mi tt ed.’ ” AFM

Messen ger Servi ce, Inc. , 198 Ill . 2d at 393, quo t ing Un

i ted State s v . Un

i ted State s G y psum Co. , 333 U.S . 364 , 395 , 68 S . Ct . 525 , 92 L. Ed. 2d 746 (1 948). SMRJ contends t hat it was not the employer of the subject worker s because it mer ely referred the workers to its cl

ie nt compan

ie s. We di sagree. Sec ti on 206 of the Act pr ovides that “em ploy me nt” in cl udes “al l s ervices perf

ormed by an in div idua l for an empl

oyi ng uni t. ” 820 ILCS 405 /20 6 (Wes t 1 998 ); Jac k Br adley, Inc . v. De p’ t of Em pl oy men t Se cu ri ty , 146 Ill . 2d61, 74, 585 N. E. 2d 1 23 ( 199 1) . An “em ploy in g uni t” is def in ed to in cl ude a corpor ation “

whi ch h as or * * * had in its emplo y one o r mo re individuals pe rfo rming servi ces f or it withi n thi s State.” 820 ILCS 405/2 04 (W est 199 8). Al

so, “wage s” a

re “ ev ery f orm of r emu ne r at io n fo rpe r so na l se r vic es , inc lud ing sa lari es, commi ssions, and b onuses.” 820 I LCS 405/2 34 (W

est 199 8).No. 1-07- 0112

12

The evi dence adduce d

at th e adm i n i strati v e h ea ri n g e sta b l i sh ed th at w h en wor kers ca me to SMRJ, the

y com plete d a nd si gned a docu men t pre pa red by SM RJ an d e nti tl ed “ A ppl i ca ti on f or El i gi b i l i ty Verif ic ation.” A f

ter a work er p erf orm ed servi ce s purs

ua nt to a re ferr al by SMRJ, t he client
co mpany pr ov i de d S MR

J wi th a report in

dic ating the

nam e of the i ndi vi dual worker and the num

ber of hours worked. The cli

ent compan

ie s report ed the hours worked by each in div idual and paid SMRJ dir ec t ly f or those s ervi ces . SMR

J the n c omp en sated

the i ndi vi dual workers after it collected its fees. These ci rc um sta n ce s dem on strate th at th e s er v i ce s p er f orm ed b y th e s ub j ec t wor kers b en ef i tte d SM RJ and pr o pe r ly

were considered “em

ploy me nt” under the Act. See Jack Bradl ey , Inc. , 146 Ill . 2d at 76. SMRJ als o cla ims t ha t , ev en if

it was the em

ploy er of the subj ect worker s, it was n ot obli gated to pay une mployment in

surance contri

butions on their wage s becaus e they were exem

pt un de r s ec ti on 212 of the Act. Agai

n, we di sagree. The purpose of the Act i s to pro vi de economi

c reli ef to those who ar e invo lun t ar ily
unem ploy ed, t hro ugh t he co llectio n of c omp ulso ry co nt ribut ions fr om emplo yers a nd t he pa yment of benef its to eli gib le un empl oyed persons. 820 ILCS 405/10 0 (West 2006) ; Ca rs on Pi rie S cott & Co. v. D ep’ t of E mployment Se cu ri ty , 131 Il l . 2d 23, 2 8, 544 N .E.2d 772(1989 ). Un der the A ct, l i ab i l i ty f or contri buti ons a nd e l i gi bi l i ty f or ben ef i ts i s de pen den t, in part , o n t he ex is tence of an

“ em pl oy men t” relati onsh

i p. AFM Messen ger Service, Inc. , 198 Il

l . 2d at 39 6. Th e d ete rm

i na ti on of whether su ch an emp lo yment r ela t io nsh ip exist s is no t co nt ro lled by comm on la w prin ci ple s of m aster and serv an t and i nde pen den t contractor. AFM

Messen ger Servi ce, Inc. , 198 Ill . 2d at 396. I nstead,
cou rtsare required

to consi der the statutory

de f i ni ti ons , wh i ch are more i nc l us i ve tha n th e c om mon l aw. AFM

Messen ger Servi ce, Inc. , 19 8 Ill. 2d at 396 ; Jack Bradl ey , Inc. , 146 Il

l .2d at 74
.No. 1-07- 0112

13

Wh erese r vic es ar e p er fo r med by ind ep en de nt co nt r ac t o r s, an ex ce pt io n to t he e xpans ive de f i ni ti on of “ em pl oy men t” is cre ate d b

y se cti on 21 2 of th e A ct. 820 IL CS 40 5/212(We st 1998 ); AFM Messen ger Servi ce, Inc. , 198 I ll . 2d at 397. T hat section pro vides as foll ows: “Servi ce performe d

by a n i ndi vi dual for an em

ploy in g uni t, whether or not such in div idua l emp lo ys o t he r s incon

n ec ti on wi th t he pe r fo r man ce o f su ch se r vic es , sha ll be deem ed to be empl

oym ent unl ess an d until it i s proven

inan y procee di ng w here
such i ss ue i s i n v ol v ed th atA. Such i ndi vi dual has b een an

d wil l c ontinue t o be free f

rom control or direction over the pe rf orm an ceof such servi ce s, b oth u

nd er h i s c ontr ac t of ser vice and in fact ; and B. Su ch se rvi ce i s e i th er outs i de th e usual

course of the busi

ness for whi ch such servi ce is pe rf orm ed or tha t su ch servi cei s p erf

orm ed outs i deof

al l the pl ac esof business of t he ent er pr ise for which su ch se rvice is p er for med; and C. Such i ndi vid ua l is enga ged in an indepe ndent ly esta blished t ra de, oc cup at ion, prof ess i on, or busi

ne ss.” 820 IL CS 40 5/212(We st 1998 ). The t hre e co ndit ions s et for t h in sect ion 212 are phrased i n the conj unctiv

e, and al l three
co ndit ions m

ust b e sa tis f i ed f or the i nde pen den t-contrac tor exem

pti on to appl

y . AFM M essen

ger Service, Inc. , 19 8 Ill. 2d at 397 ; Jac k Br adley, Inc
. , 146 Ill .2d a t 75. In determin in g whether
exem ption app lies, t he termi

nology used by the parties to describ e thei r relati onshi

p is not contr oll

in g, and the pa rty cl ai m i ng the exem ption be ars a stri ct bu rden of proof. AFM

Messen ger Servi ce, Inc. , 198 Ill. 2d a t 3 97- 98; Ja ck Br ad ley, Inc. , 1 46 I ll.2d a t 75- 76. Also, beca use t he A ct w as pa ss ed wi thNo. 1-07- 0112

14

t he pu blic w elfa r e in mind , it s p r o visio ns a r e t o be lib er all y con str ued i n f av or of i nc l usi on. AFM Messen ger Servi ce, Inc. , 19 8 Ill. 2d at 398 ; Jack Bradl ey , Inc. , 146 Ill .2d at 75. In this case, the Di

rect or f ound th at S MRJ h

ad fai le d to me et its burden

as to all three
co ndit ions of se ct ion 2 12. Bec aus e t he i n ab i l i ty to satisfy an

y one condition will

defeat a n empl

oyer’s cla im for an indep ende nt -c ont ra ct or exempt ion, it i s not necessary for us to co nsi

der whether

al l three
co ndit ions have b een sati sf ie d. See AFM

Messen ger Servi ce, Inc. , 19 8 Ill. 2d at 398 ; Gri f f i tts Constru cti on Co. v . De

p’ t of La bor , 76 Il l. 2d 99, 105, 390 N.E.2d 333 (1979). Rather, we need
o nly addre ss th

e thi rd condi tion , w hi ch

requi re s that the subj ect worker s be “engaged i n an ind ep en de nt ly

est ablished t ra de, oc cup at ion, pr ofe ssio n, or bus i ne ss.” See AFM

Messen ger Servi ce, Inc. , 198 Il

l . 2d at 39 8; 8 20 IL CS 40 5/212 (C) (W est 199 8). Sec ti on 212C “ ‘ contem

pla tes that one who i s engaged i n an in dependen t enterprise i s an in div idua l who has a propri etary i

nterest in such b usi ness to the extent that he can

ope ra te [ t he ] sa me wi thou t hi nd ran cef rom any in div idua l wh atsoeverand whose bus iness al so is free from co ntro l.’ ” Jack Bradl

ey , Inc. , 14 6 I ll. 2d at 77, quo ting Mu r ph y v. Da umit , 387 Ill . 406, 417, 56 N.E .2d800 (1 944 ). “Thu s, ‘ [t ]he ult imate iss ue is w het her t he person perform in g the servi

ces was en

gaged in
an entrepreneuri al

enterprise

whi ch en joy ed a degree of econom

ic in de pend ence suc h t hat t he enterpr ise could sur vi ve an y relati onsh

i p wi th the particul ar per son c ontracti

ng f or serv i ces .’ ” Jack Br ad ley, Inc. , 14 6 I l l . 2d

at 7 8, q uoti n g w i th a pp r o va l Sampl

e & Sel l, Inc . v. Labor & Indus

trial Relat ions Comm’n , 764 S. W.2d 109, 11 2 (Mo. App. 1988); see also AFM Messen ger Service, Inc. , 198 Ill. 2d a t 4 01; Mur phy , 387 Il l . at 417. W

here wo r ke r s a r e n o t ca pa ble of provi din g their s ervices withoutdependen

ce upon another enti

ty, they wi ll not be co ns i dered

to have m

et the statutoryNo. 1-07- 0112

15

re quir ement set f

orth i n s ection 212 C. Jack Bradl ey , Inc. , 146 Ill .2d at 78. Mo reover, the fact that
an i nd i vi dua l may also p erf orm servi ce s f orothe r com pa ni esdoe s n ot nece ssar ily

est ablish tha t t he in dividua lis a

n i nde pen den t contractor un

der s ection 212 C. Jack Bradl ey , Inc. , 146 Ill . 2d at 80; Ross v. C ummins , 7 I ll. 2d 595, 601, 131 N.E.2d 521. T he f ocus of the rel evan

t inqui ry is whether t he in div idua l workers ha

d busi ness es oroc cup at ions w hich wer e ca pable o f op er at ion indep ende nt of a r ela t io nsh

ip wi th empl oyi ng uni t. See Jack Bradl

ey , Inc. , 14 6 Ill. 2d at 80; Legal Process Serv i ce, In c. v . Wa rd , 165 Il l . Ap p. 3d 83 , 89, 518 N.E.2d 7 68 (19 88). In addi tion, section 2732.200(e) of the Depa rtment’s regul

ations provi

des 13 f actors t o be considered

in determi ni ng whether an i

ndi vi dual is an i ndepen dent contracto r under

section 212C

of t he Ac t . Se e 5 6 I ll. A dm

i n. Code § 273 2.2 00( e). No s i ng l e f ac torwill d et er mine if a n ind ividua l is engaged in a n ind ep en de nt ly

establ is hed trad e, oc cupation, pr ofessi on or busi ness, and the busi

ness
re al i ty or tota l i ty of c ircu msta nces will det er mine the exi stence of this condi tion. 56 Ill . Adm

in . Code § 2732 .200(e ). SMRJ cor re ctl y as se rtsth at s evera

l of the se f ac tors a ppl y to the su bj ec t work

ers . F or in stance, the

y we re res pon si bl e f or th ei r own taxes ; th ey pe rf orm ed servi ce s f

orSM RJ un de rt he ir
ownnames; S MRJ d id no t re pr ese nt t he su bj ect work er s as e mployees t o it s cu st omer s; and t he subj ect wo rk er s had t he right to perform s im il ar servi ces f or o ther compani

es when they chose. See 56 I ll. Adm

in . Code § 2 73 2. 20 0( e) ( 5) , ( 6) , ( 8) , ( 11 )
. Alt ho ug h t he se fac t o r s s ug ge st a c er t ain
meas ure of i ndepen dence i n em ploy me nt, they are not suff

ici ent to establi sh

that the sub j ect worke

rs were independen

t co ntract ors.No. 1-07- 0112

16

The Dire ct or det er mined t hat many of t he f actors set for t h in the r egu latio n indicat ed t hat t he subj ect wo rkers wer e no t indepe ndent co nt ra ct or s. I n par t icular , t her e wa s no evidenc e t hat t he in div idua l wo r ke r s ha d a n int er es t in a n ind ep en de nt bu sine ss t ha t is no t su bje ct t o ca nc ell at ion or de stru cti on upon seve ran ceof the re l ati onsh

i p. Se e 5 6 I ll. A dmin
. Co de § 2 73 2. 20 0( e) ( 1)
. No rdid t he r ec o r d e st ab lish t ha t t he wo r ke r s ha d a n inv es t men t o f ca pit al, owned capital goo ds, or gained the p rofi ts an d bore the l oss esof a busi ne ss e nterpri se. Se e 56 Il

l . Ad m i n. C ode § 27 32.200 (e)(2), (3). Though

Ad ler t es t ified t ha t t he su bje ct wo r ke r s w er e fr ee t o mak e t he irser vices ava ilable to t he general pub l i c, there was no evi dence that they

had done so. See 56 Il l. A dmi n. Code § 2732.2 00(e)(4). Also, ther e was no ev i den ce that the workersha

d s hop s or

of f i ce s of the i r own or
ma in taine d busi ness l isti ngs i n the telephone director y or in trad e journals. See 56 I ll. Admin. Code § 2732 .200(e )(7), (12 ). Furtherm ore, the Di

rector found that the sub

je ct wor kers h ad n o ab i l i ty to negotiate the fe e charged by SMRJ, and their empl

oym ent was dependent o n SMRJ. The work ers could n ot seek employment di

rectl y f rom t he client co mpanies a nd

had t o be re ferr ed by SM RJ. SMR J pr ovid ed t he written con tract si gned by ea ch i nd i vi dua l work er prior to th e i

ni ti al ref erral , an d the w orke

rs di d n ot sign successi ve agreem

ents each tim e a refe rral wa s m ade. In addi ti on , SM RJ f ai l ed to pr ese nt any evi dence that the sub j ect worke

rs had proprietary

in terests in thei

r own busi ness es t ha t t he y we r e a ble to o pe r at e o n t he ir o wn , wit ho ut t he be ne fit o f a r ela t io nsh ip with SM RJ or anotherr ef

er r al c o mp an y. See Jack Bradl

ey , Inc. , 146 Ill . 2d at 80-81. Based upon th e rec ordpresented, we concl ude that SMRJ fa

il ed to carr y i

ts strict bu

rde n of p roof in d em onstrating that the subj ect worker s were engage d in in dependen tly establ is hedNo. 1-07- 0112

17

oc cup at ions or bus i

ne ss es . Con

se que ntl y , th e D i rector’ s dec i si

on th at the re qui

rem en ts of se cti on 212C had not been satisfi ed was not clearl

y erroneous. We ne xt ad dr es s S MR J’ s a r gu men t t ha t , un de rt he do ct r ine o f eq uit ab le e st o pp el, t he Dep ar t ment sh

oul d b e p rec l ude d f rom enfo rc ingit s d et er minat io n a nd as se ss men t . We no t e t ha t t his
ar gument was not ra ised d ur ing t he ad mini st ra t iveproc ee di

ng s b ef ore th e D i rector or the Direct or ’s representative. Consequen tly, it has be en f orf ei ted on appeal . See Te xaco -Cit ies Se rvice P ipeline Co. v. McGaw , 18 2 I ll. 2d 262, 278 , 6 95 N .E .2 d 48 1 ( 199 8) (no t ing t hat issues not ra ised be for e t he adm i nistrati ve agen cy are f orfe i ted on a dm i nistrati ve revi ew). SMRJ also claims tha t t he De par t ment should be estopped from coll ecting statu to ry i

nterest
on th e u n pai d c on tri b uti on s b ec au se

i ts c l as si f i ca ti on of th e s ub j ec t worke rs a s indep ende nt
co nt r ac t o r s ha d b ee n a pp r o ve d in a p r ev io us au dit
. We r eje ct t his c laim. E qu it ab le est op pel is ap plied ag ainst t he St at e o nly when so me po sitive act s by St at e o fficia ls
ma y h av e i n du ce d a n ac ti on b y th e adver se

pa rty un de rcir cu mst an ce s w he r e it wo uld be ine qu it ab le to hold the a

dverse party

li abl e for the act so in

duced. Jack Bradl

ey , Inc. , 14 6 Ill. 2d at 81; Hic key
v. Ill i noi s C en tral R.R . Co. , 35 Ill . 2d 427, 448-49, 22 0 N.E.2d 4 15 ( 196 6) . T he do ct rine w ill be in voked only in compel li ng or extraordinary

ci rcumstances where i

t is n ecessary to prevent f

raudand in jus tice. Bro wn’s Fu rnit ur e v. Wagn er , 17 1 Ill. 2d 410 , 43 1, 6 65 N .E .2d 795 (19 96) ; Ja ck Br ad ley, Inc. , 14 6 Ill. 2d at 81; Ro ck fo rd Life Insurance Co. v. Dep’t of Revenue , 112 Ill . 2d 174, 185, 492 N.E.2d 127 8 (1 986 ); Austin Liquor Mar t, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue , 51 Ill . 2d 1, 6, 280 N.E .2d 437 (1972 ). Thi s i s especi

al ly true when publ

ic revenue s are i

nvol ved. Jack Bradl

ey , Inc. , 146 Ill . 2d at 81; Ro ck fo rd Life In su

ran ceCo. , 112 Ill. 2d at 185 -8 6. Mo re ove r, t he St at e is no t est op ped by theNo. 1-07- 0112

18

mi stakes or misi

nfor matio n given by

Sta te em pl oy ee s wi th re sp ec t to ta

x l i ab i l i ti es or b y th e p rior a cts
or co nduct of i

ts agents regardin

g the determi

nation of tax li abi li tiesor fa i l ure to coll ect a tax . See Bro wn’s Furn

i ture , 171 Ill. 2d a t 4 32; Austi n Li quor Mart , Inc. , 51 Ill. 2d a t 5 ; Saco Industries , Inc.
v. Ill in ois Dep’ t o f Re

ven ue , 301 Ill . App.3d 191, 197 , 70 2 N .E. 2d 10 12 (1 99 8) . Th

e f ac t th at a company’scl assifi

cation of workers as i

ndepen de n t con

tr ac tors h

asbe en approv ed i n a pri or Dep ar t ment au dit is insufficientto warran t the ap pli cation of

equi tabl e es toppel
. Jack Bradl

ey , Inc. , 146 Ill . 2d at 81-82. In this case, the Departmen

t is n ot estopped based on i

ts prior deter m i n ati on

th at S MRJ’s workers wer e indep ende nt co nt ra ct or s, r ende re d in t he 1993 a udi t conducted b

y Voi gt. In a ddit ion, t he record

doe s n ot de mon strate th at D ep ar

tmen t of f i ci als e n gage d i n an y pos i ti v e acts that caused SMRJ to alter its conduct or p roced ures in a m anner that increased its exist ing l i ab i l i ty f or unemplo yment

contributi ons. SMRJ presen ted no evi dence

tha t, as a re sul t of the pri oraudi t, it was in duced t o c hange its c lassificat ion o f the su bje ct wo r ke r s o rva ry it s p o licie s in an y way . Moreov er, t he fac t s o f t his ca se

do n ot pre sent a

ny com pe l l i ng orex traordi na ry ci rcum stan ces that woul d requ i re appl i ca ti on of t he ap plicat ion o f equ itable e st op pel. Absent frau d o r injust ice, t he De pa rtm en t i s n ot estopped fro m im

po sing stat ut or y i

nter est o n SMRJ’s un

pai d c ontr

i bu ti ons , as prov i de d i n s ec ti on 1401 of the Act (820 ILCS 405/1401 (Wes t 1998)). See Brown ’sFurn i ture , 171 Ill . 2d at 431. In f ur th er su pp ort of i ts ar gument t hat t he statut ory i nterest should b e wai

ved, SMRJ rel

ie s
on sect ion 2765. 65 o f the Depar tment’s admi ni strat iv e regulations, which

stat es, in relev ant part, as foll ows:No. 1-07- 0112

19

“a) The Di

rector is authorized

t o w aive t he pa

y m en t of al l or pa rt of an y i nte res t or pen al ty upon prop ose d a

ppl i ca ti on a nd sh owi ng of good c au se

tha t con sists of an y or al l of the fol lowi ng: * * * 3) Whe r e t he Ag en cy, in

its w rit t en co mmunicatio n or t hro ugh a specifi cally ide ntif ie d
em ploy ee in oralcomm

un ic ation di

rected to a specifi

c em ploy er account has affir mat ive ly misle d t he emplo yer as t o it s du t ies and obligat ions s uch t hat t he char ging of i

ntere st to the em

ploye r would vi ola te the pri nc i pl e of equi tabl e es toppel .” 56 Il l . Ad m i n. C ode § 27 65.65( a)(3). SMRJ contends that statements m ade by Voigt durin

g the previous au dit in

1993 constituted
an oral commun

ication that aff

irm ativel y m isl ed it as t o its du ties an

d obli gations. Ini

tial ly , we obs er ve that a w ai

ver of statutory

i nte res t un de r th e D ep artm

en t’s reg ul ati on is not manda

to ry, b ut
re sts wi thi n the di scre

tion of the Di rector. 56 Il

l . Ad m i n. C ode § 27 65.65( a); see al so I t as ca Pu blic School Di st. No. 10 v . Wa

rd , 179 Ill . App.3d 920, 925, 535 N. E. 2d 3 (1 989 ). In a ddit ion, we find t hat Vo igt ’s r emark s do not sat isfy the co ndit ions s et for t h in the r egu latio n. Acco rd ingto A dl

er , du ri n g th e e x i t i n ter v i ew f or th e p re v i ous

audi t, Vo igt st at ed t hat t he
co mpany wasdoi ng a very go od job o f keep ing wo rk er s o ff the u nemployment ro les by fi nding them employment through the referral servi ce. On i ts f ace , thi s rem

ark does not co nsti

tut e a fi ndi ng that t he sub j ect worke

rs we re properl y class i f i ed as i nde pen den t contractors. Rat her , V oig t ’s co mment
mer ely ref l ec ts a pe rs ona l opi ni on th at SM RJ wa s p rovidi

ng a va luable so cial ser vice in kee ping workers employed . As t he Dir ect or fou nd, Vo igt ’s pe rso nal op inion co uld be t ru e whe t her t heNo. 1-07- 0112

20

subj ect workers

were employee s o r inde pend ent co nt ra ct or s. S imi larly, Vo igt ’s st at ement t hat she fo un d n o dis cr ep an cy inthe compan y’ s procedures constitutes noth i ng more th an an ex pre ss i on of t he res ul t of t he au dit , wh ich we ha ve alr ea dy h eld does not warrant t he appl ic ation of es

to ppel . See Bro wn’s Furn

i ture , 171 Ill . 2d a t 4 32; Ja ck Bradl ey , Inc. , 146 I ll . 2d at 81-82. Neither of these remarks ca n be ch ar ac t er ize d a s a n o r al c o mmun ica t io n t ha t affir mat ive ly m i sl ed SM RJ as to its dutie s
and obl i gati ons. Un

de r s uc h c i

rcu m sta nc es , we ca nn ot sa y tha t the Di rectorab us ed he r discreti on in ref us i ng to wai ve SM RJ ’s i nte res t un de r s ec ti on 2 765 .65 (a) (3) of the regulations. 56 I ll. Admin. Code § 2 765.65 (a)(3). Fin ally, we consider SMRJ’s con te nt ion t hat t he circ uit co ur t er re d in ent er ing judg ment agains t it fo r $ 95, 159 .1 6, including $ 36, 894 .7 5 in st at ut or y inter est , be cau se t he amo unt of in terest exceeded the appli ca

b l e s tatu t or y li mit. T his issue p re sent s a q ues t ion o f sta t ut or y inter pr et at ion, whi ch we review de novo . See Carpetlan d U.S.A., Inc. , 201 Ill . 2d at 369; AFM Messen ger Service, Inc. , 19 8 Ill. 2d at 395 ; Bra ns on , 168 Ill . 2d at 254.No. 1-07- 0112

21

Section 2207 o f the Act provides, in rel evant part , as foll

ows: “wh enev er the interest pr o vid ed fo rin S ec t io n 1 40 1 o n c o nt r ibu t io ns in an y quarter , hasacc ru ed t o s ixty per cent of t he amo unt of t he co nt ribut ions due fro m any employing un

i t f or s uc h q ua rter * * * no a

cti on s ha l l be br ough t, or de term i na ti on and as se ssmen

t mad e, a gai ns t su ch em pl oy i ng un i t f or col l ec ti on of t he int er es t in
excess o f sa id

sixty per cent of such contr ib utions.” 820 I LCS 405/2207 (West 1998)
. The pri mary rule of statutory con str uc ti on i s to give effect t o leg islative int ent by fi rst loo king at t he plain meaning o f the l anguag e. Da vis v. Toshi ba Mach in e Co., Ameri

ca , 186 Ill . 2d 181, 184, 710 N.E.2d 3 99 (19 99). “ Wh erethe l an guag e of a statute is cl

ear a nd u na m bi guous, a courtmust give i t ef f ec t aswri

tten , wi thou t ‘readi ng i nto i t exce ptions , li m i tation s or co ndit ions t hat t he l egi slature did n

ot express.’ ” Gar za v. Navi star International Transportat ion C orp. , 172 Ill . 2d373, 378, 666 N.E.2d 119 8 ( 199 6) , q uo t ing Solich v . George & Ann a Port es Can

cer Prevention Center of Chi cago, Inc. , 158 Ill . 2d 76, 83, 630 N.E .2d 820 (1994 ). Cou rts w i l l f i rs t l ook to the w ords

of t he sta tute b ec au se th e l an gu ag e u se d b

y th e l eg i sl atu rei s th e best i n di ca ti on of l eg i sl ati v e i n ten t. Nott age v. Jeka , 172 Ill . 2d 386, 392 , 6 67 N .E .2 d 91 (1 996 ). When t he l anguag e of a statute is cl

ear, resort t o o t he rt o o ls of i

nterpretati on i s n

ot nece ssa

ry . Henry v. St. John’s Hospi

tal , 13 8 I ll. 2d 533, 541, 56 3 N.E.2d

410 (1 990). SMRJ as serts th at the entr y of judgm ent, which in cl uded $36,894.75 in

statut ory i

nterest, was im proper beca use t he am

ount o f i nterest exceeded 60% of t he unp aid co nt ribut ions a s de t er mined by the D i rector. Thi s as serti

on i s un f ounde d.No. 1-07- 0112

22

Th e c l ea r an d un am bi guou s l an gua geof se cti on 2207 states that t he l

im it of 60% int er es t is cal cul ated base d on

the am oun t of con tri bu ti ons due f ort he r elevant pe riod, n

ot on th e a moun t of
un pa id contributi ons. Nothing i n the pl ai n l anguage of

this provisi on in dic ates that t he max imumin terest ca l cul ati on i s to be premised on unpaid contributions. Had the legisl atur e in tended t o base t he i ntere st cap

on the am ount of unp aid con

trib uti ons, i t woul d ha

ve i nc l uded that term

in t he la nguageof secti on 2207. The i nterpretati on ad

va nc ed b y SMR J woul d requ i re thi s court to i

ns ert a l i m i tation or con di ti on th at the l eg i sl atu re d i d n ot ex pre ss . Th i s w e d ec l i

ne to do. SMRJ als o cla ims t ha t t he amo un t inc lud ed in the judgm

ent for statut ory i

nterest was deriv

ed f rom an i ncorrect mathem

atical cal cul ation. Thi s clai

m i s predi catedon

the err one ousas su

m ption that the 60%- in

terest cap i

s b ase d on un

pai d con trib uti ons. I n ad dit io n, we find t ha t SM RJ ’s cla im is re fut ed by t he record. Th e Di rector’s ex hi bi t 5 cons i sts of

the c omp l ete ac coun

t hi story for SMRJ, including the quarterly

-detail report for 1999. That report refl ects that t he contrib

utions due

f oreach of t he fo ur qu ar t er s in 19 99 we r e $ 16 , 94 7. 48 , $1 6, 81 7. 83 , $1 5, 67 3. 84 , an d $ 12 , 05 2. 10 , r es pe ct ive ly. Theref ore, the tot al

am ount o f contri

but ionsdue wa s $ 61 , 49 1. 25 , an d 6 0% o f t ha t amo un t is $3 6,8 94 .75 . C on se qu en

tl y , w e f i n d n o er ror i n th e c al cul ati on of th e a moun t of sta tutor y i n terest. SMRJ nex t contends that it was i

mproper f or the cour

t to enter the

j udgm en t for s tatutory in terest be ca

us e the entr

y of that j udgm

en t wou l d p er m i t th e D ep ar

tmen t to pu rs ue a c l ai m f or p ost judg ment in

terest in excess of the l im itation contai

ned i n section 2207. W e f

i nd tha t thi s c onte nti on is not support ed by

the applic abl

e statut ory language or by the record. Fi rs t, t he r e is n o dispute

th at s ec ti on

11 1( a) (8 ) of

th e A dm i n i strati v e R ev i ew La w p er m i ts t he cir cu it court to enter such a j udgme nt. See 73 5 ILC S 5 /3 -1 11( a) (8 ) ( West 200 6) . S eco nd, t heNo. 1-07- 0112

23

in terest li mi tation contain

ed i n s ec ti on 220 7 ap plies o nly to act ions br ou ght , o r d et er minatio ns and
as se ssmen

ts made, for the interest prov i de d f or i n S ec ti on 1401. 8 20 IL CS 40 5/220 7 (W est 199 8). As a r es ult , t he t er ms of secti on 2207 would not apply to post-judgmen

t interest that is authorized by another s tatutory

provisi on. See 735 IL CS 5/2 -13 03 (W es t 200 6). Thi rd, the re i s n o i nd i ca ti on in t he r ec o r d t ha t t he De pa r t men t ha d o rint en de d t o pu r su e a cla im fo rpo st - jud gme nt in

terest . Ac co r di ng ly, we reje ct SMR J’ s con tention tha

t it wa s i m proper f or the cour

t to enter a

judgm ent that i n cl ud ed $3 6,8 94 .75 i

n sta tutor y i n terest. For the foregoing reas ons, the judgm ent of the ci

rcuit court is af

fi rmed. Af fi rmed. HA LL , J., an d K AR NEZIS , J., con

cur.