Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

Grey v. Hasbrouck, 2015 IL App (1st) 130267

Appellate Court 

Caption

LAUREN GREY, VICTOR WILLIAMS, and NICHOLAS 

GUARINO, on Behalf of Themselves and All Persons Similarly 

Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LA MAR HASBROUCK, M.D., 

Director of the Department of Public Health, in His Official Capacity 

as State Registrar of Vital Records, Defendant-Appellant.

District & No. First District, Sixth Division

Docket No. 1-13-0267

Filed May 22, 2015

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 11-CH-17091; the 

Hon. Michael B. Hyman, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.

Counsel on

Appeal

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, 

Solicitor General, and Jane Elinor Notz and Brett E. Legner, Assistant 

Attorneys General, of counsel), for appellant.

John A. Knight, Harvey Grossman, and Ruth Z. Brown, all of Roger 

Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., and David M. Kroeger and Kyle 

A. Palazzolo, both of Jenner & Block LLP, both of Chicago, and 

James D. Esseks, of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, of 

New York, New York, for appellees.
- 2 - 

Panel JUSTICE HALL delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Presiding Justice Hoffman and Justice Lampkin concurred in the 

judgment and opinion.

 OPINION 

¶ 1 The defendant, La Mar Hasbrouck, M.D., State Registrar of Vital Records, appeals an 

order of the circuit court of Cook County awarding attorney fees and costs to the plaintiffs, 

Lauren Grey, Victor Williams and Nicholas Guarino, in conjunction with the entry of a 

consent decree. The sole issue on appeal is whether the award of attorney fees and costs was 

barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude 

that sovereign immunity does not bar the award of attorney fees and costs. We affirm the 

order of the circuit court. 

¶ 2 Section 17(1)(d) of the Vital Records Act (410 ILCS 535/17(1)(d) (West 2010)) provides 

in pertinent part as follows: 

“(1) For a person born in this State, the State Registrar of Vital Records shall 

establish a new certificate of birth when he receives any of the following: 

 * * * 

 (d) An affidavit by a physician that he has performed an operation on a 

person, and that by reason of the operation the sex designation on such person’s 

birth record should be changed. The State Registrar of Vital Records may make 

any investigation or require any further information he deems necessary.”

¶ 3 On May 10, 2011, the plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves 

and a class of persons similarly situated against the defendant in his official capacity as the 

Director of Public Health and the State Registrar of Vital Records.1 The plaintiffs and the 

members of the class are transgender persons who were born in Illinois. 

¶ 4 The complaint alleged that, prior to 2005, the defendant routinely changed the gender 

mark on Illinois birth certificates to accurately reflect the gender identity for persons who had 

undergone a form of gender confirmation surgery that did not include genital surgery. The 

plaintiffs further alleged that in or about 2005, the defendant adopted a practice in which he 

refused to correct the sex designation on an Illinois birth certificate to match the person’s 

gender identification unless the person had undergone genital surgery. The plaintiffs 

maintained that in denying their applications to change the sex designation on their birth 

certificates without the genital surgery, the defendant violated the Vital Records Act and their 

rights to due process and privacy under the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §§6, 

12). The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and an award of costs and 

reasonable attorney fees pursuant to section 5 of the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003 (740 

ILCS 23/5 (West 2010)) (the Civil Rights Act). On October 23, 2012, the parties entered into 

a consent decree resolving the substantive issues raised in the complaint. 

¶ 5 On December 11, 2012, the circuit court conducted a hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for 

an award of attorney fees as provided for under the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs argued 

 

1The original defendant was Damon T. Arnold, then the State Registrar of Vital Records. 
- 3 - 

that the legislature intended to waive sovereign immunity under the Civil Rights Act by 

providing for the award of attorney fees. They further argued that the state officer exception 

to sovereign immunity applied. The circuit court agreed with the plaintiffs that the state 

officer exception applied in this case. The court awarded costs and attorney fees in the 

amount of $135,000 to the plaintiffs as the prevailing party. The defendant appeals. 

¶ 6 ANALYSIS 

¶ 7 I. Standard of Review 

¶ 8 “Whether a circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction presents a question of law and is 

subject to de novo review.” Wolinsky v. Kadison, 2013 IL App (1st) 111186, ¶ 31; see Hadley 

v. Department of Corrections, 362 Ill. App. 3d 680, 683 (2005) (a court lacks jurisdiction 

over lawsuits barred by sovereign immunity). The court also applies the de novo standard of 

review to the construction of a statute. Wolinsky, 2013 IL App (1st) 111186, ¶ 31. 

¶ 9 II. Discussion 

¶ 10 A. The Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity 

¶ 11 The 1970 Illinois Constitution abolished the doctrine of sovereign immunity “ ‘[e]xcept 

as the General Assembly may provide by law.’ ” Leetaru v. Board of Trustees of the 

University of Illinois, 2015 IL 117485, ¶ 42 (quoting Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 4). Pursuant 

to that authority, the General Assembly reinstituted the doctrine when it enacted the State 

Lawsuit Immunity Act (745 ILCS 5/0.01 et seq. (West 2012)). Leetaru, 2015 IL 117485, 

¶ 42. “The doctrine of sovereign immunity exists in Illinois pursuant to the Immunity Act, 

which mandates that the State or a department of the State cannot be a defendant in an action 

brought directly in the circuit court, except where the State has expressly consented to be 

sued.” Watkins v. Office of the State Appellate Defender, 2012 IL App (1st) 111756, ¶ 21. The 

State’s consent to be sued must be “ ‘clear and unequivocal.’ ” In re Special Education of 

Walker, 131 Ill. 2d 300, 303 (1989) (quoting Martin v. Giordano, 115 Ill. App. 3d 367, 369 

(1983)).

¶ 12 Sovereign immunity protects the State from interference with the performance of 

governmental functions and serves to preserve and protect state funds. Lynch v. Department 

of Transportation, 2012 IL App (4th) 111040, ¶ 21. Statutes authorizing costs are in 

derogation of the common law and therefore must be strictly construed. Williams v. 

Davenport, 306 Ill. App. 3d 465, 469 (1999). “Nothing will be read into such statutes by 

intendment or implication.” Walker, 131 Ill. 2d at 304. 

¶ 13 B. Waiver of Sovereign Immunity 

¶ 14 The defendant contends that sovereign immunity barred an award of attorney fees and 

costs pursuant to section 5(c) of the Civil Rights Act. We disagree. 

¶ 15 Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination and provides in pertinent part 

as follows: 

“(a) No unit of State, county, or local government in Illinois shall:

 (1) exclude a person from participation in, deny a person the benefits of, or 

subject a person to discrimination under any program or activity on the grounds of 

that person’s race, color, national origin, or gender; or
- 4 - 

 (2) utilize criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of 

subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, national 

origin, or gender. 

 (b) Any party aggrieved by conduct that violates subsection (a) may bring a civil 

lawsuit, in a federal district court or State circuit court, against the offending unit of 

government. Any State claim brought in federal district court shall be a supplemental 

claim to a federal claim. *** If the court finds that a violation of paragraph (1) or (2) 

of subsection (a) has occurred, the court may award to the plaintiff actual damages. 

The court, as it deems appropriate, may grant as relief any permanent or preliminary 

negative or mandatory injunction, temporary restraining order, or other order. 

(c) Upon motion, a court shall award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, 

including expert witness fees and other litigation expenses, to a plaintiff who is a 

prevailing party in any action brought: 

 (1) pursuant to subsection (b); or 

(2) to enforce a right arising under the Illinois Constitution.” 740 ILCS 23/5 

(West 2010).2

¶ 16 General enactments imposing liability cannot be applied to the State in the absence of a 

specific legislative intent to so apply them. Martin, 115 Ill. App. 3d at 370. In Walker, section 

2-1303 of Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 110, ¶ 2-1303) provided for the 

payment of the interest at 9% or “6% per annum when the judgment debtor is a unit of local 

government, *** a school district, a community college district, or any other governmental 

entity.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Walker, 131 Ill. 2d at 303. The supreme court 

found the language “any other governmental entity” was not a “sufficiently clear expression 

by the legislature to constitute a waiver of the State’s immunity.” Walker, 131 Ill. 2d at 304;

City of Springfield v. Allphin, 82 Ill. 2d 571, 578-79 (1980) (general interest statutes do not 

impose liability for prejudgment or postjudgment interest against the State); see also 

Department of Revenue v. Appellate Court, 67 Ill. 2d 392, 398 (1977) (the State did not 

consent to the payment of appeal costs where the statute authorizing the imposition of costs 

did not reference the State). 

¶ 17 In Williams, this court addressed whether the State could be held jointly and severally 

liable for attorney fees and costs of a guardian ad litem by the circuit court. The Illinois 

Department of Public Aid (the Department) argued that under the Court of Claims Act (705 

ILCS 505/8(a) (West 1998)), the Court of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction of claims against 

the State. Therefore, the circuit court’s order was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Williams, 306 Ill. App. 3d at 467-68. This court agreed, finding that section 506(b) of the 

Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/506(b) (West 1998)), which 

provided for the payment of the attorney fees and costs of the guardian ad litem, did not 

contain an explicit waiver of the State’s immunity that would amount to its consent to pay the 

fees for the guardian ad litem. Williams, 306 Ill. App. 3d at 469. We determined that the 

language in section 506, “ ‘any adult party,’ ” was not specific enough to constitute a waiver 

of sovereign immunity for the payment of attorney fees. Williams, 306 Ill. App. 3d at 469; 

see Department of Revenue, 67 Ill. 2d at 396-98 (holding that, in the absence of a specific 

 

2Neither the plaintiffs’ status as prevailing parties nor the reasonableness of the attorney fees and 

costs are at issue in this appeal. 
- 5 - 

reference to the State, terms such as “any person” and “either party” were not specific 

enough to impose fees and costs against the Department for the printing of transcripts). 

¶ 18 The defendant does not dispute that the plaintiffs had the right to sue the defendant 

pursuant to section 5(a) of the Civil Rights Act but argues that section 5(c) of the Civil 

Rights Act does not contain a clear unequivocal and affirmative expression of the State’s 

consent to be liable for attorney fees because there is no specific reference to the State in 

section 5(c). The fact that section 5(c) contains no specific reference to the State is not 

determinative of whether the State has waived immunity for purposes of the imposition of 

attorney fees under the Civil Rights Act. When the court addresses whether the State has 

waived sovereign immunity, “[t]he critical issue is whether the legislature intended to impose 

liability upon the State–not how or where the intent is expressed.” Martin, 115 Ill. App. 3d at 

370. 

¶ 19 In construing a statute, the court’s primary goal is to ascertain and give effect to the intent 

of the legislature. NAB Bank v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., 2013 IL App (1st) 121147, ¶ 10. 

“[L]egislative intent must be garnered from a review of the entire statutory plan.” Cullen v. 

Retirement Board of the Policeman’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 271 Ill. App. 3d 1105, 1109 

(1995). “The statutory provision must be read as a whole and all relevant parts should be 

considered.” Lohr v. Havens, 377 Ill. App. 3d 233, 236 (2007). A court should not read 

language into a statute that does not exist. Lohr, 377 Ill. App. 3d at 236. 

¶ 20 The legislature subjected the State to the provisions of the Civil Rights Act. Section 5(a) 

specifically refers to the “State” as an entity of government that can be sued under section 

5(b). Section 5(c) provides that the court may award attorney fees and costs to a party who 

prevails in any action brought pursuant to section 5(b), or to enforce a right arising under the 

Illinois Constitution. After allowing the State to be sued under the Civil Rights Act, the 

legislature, had it wished to exempt the State from the obligation of paying attorney fees and 

costs as provided therein, could have done so. As our supreme court observed recently in 

Illinois State Treasurer v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, 2015 IL 117418, “where 

the legislature wishes to excuse the State or other entities from filing and other fees imposed 

by the circuit court in connection with litigation, it knows how and has done so expressly.” 

Illinois State Treasurer, 2015 IL 117418, ¶ 35 (citing 705 ILCS 105/27.2a (dd), 27.1a(dd), 

27.2(dd) (West 2012)). 

¶ 21 To accept the defendant’s argument would require this court to read into the statute an 

exemption for the State that the legislature could have but did not provide in section 5(c). 

Construing section 5 of the Civil Rights Act as a whole, the State consented to be sued and, 

therefore, consented to pay attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party. Sovereign 

immunity does not bar an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to section 5(c) of the 

Civil Rights Act against the State. 

¶ 22 C. Officer Suit Exception to Sovereign Immunity 

¶ 23 Assuming, arguendo, that the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred the award of 

attorney fees and costs against the State, we agree with the circuit court that the award of 

attorney fees and costs to the plaintiffs was proper since the officer suit exception to 

sovereign immunity applied in this case. 

¶ 24 “[T]he determination of whether a suit is against the State is dependent on the issues 

involved and the relief sought rather than by the formal identification of the parties.” Herget 
- 6 - 

National Bank of Pekin v. Kenney, 105 Ill. 2d 405, 408 (1985). “ ‘When the State will be 

directly and adversely affected by the judgment or decree, making the State the real party 

against whom relief is sought, the suit is against the State.’ ” Herget, 105 Ill. 2d at 408-09 

(quoting Hudgens v. Dean, 75 Ill. 2d 353, 357 (1979)). There is a recognized presumption 

that the State or a department thereof cannot violate the constitution or the laws of the State. 

Herget, 105 Ill. 2d at 411. Where such a violation takes place, the violation is “deemed to be 

made ‘by a State officer or the head of a department of the State, and such officer or head 

may be restrained by proper action instituted by a citizen.’ ” Herget, 105 Ill. 2d at 411 

(quoting Schwing v. Miles, 367 Ill. 436, 441-42 (1937). 

¶ 25 Under the “officer suit exception,” “when the action of a state officer is undertaken 

without legal authority, such action ‘strips a State officer of his official status *** [and] his 

conduct is not then regarded as the conduct of the State, nor is the action against him 

considered an action against the State.’ ” PHL, Inc. v. Pullman Bank & Trust Co., 216 Ill. 2d 

250, 261 (2005) (quoting Moline Tool Co. v. Department of Revenue, 410 Ill. 35, 37 (1951)). 

Where the plaintiff is not attempting to enforce a present claim against the State but rather 

seeks to enjoin the defendant from taking actions in excess of his delegated authority, and in 

violation of the plaintiff’s protectable legal interests, the suit does not contravene the 

immunity prohibition. Bio-Medical Laboratories, Inc. v. Trainor, 68 Ill. 2d 540, 548 (1977). 

¶ 26 In the present case, the plaintiffs did not seek money damages, only injunctive and 

declaratory relief aimed at enjoining the defendant from his practice of refusing to issue new 

birth certificates to the plaintiffs and the members of the class as he was required to do under 

section 17(1)(d) of the Vital Statistics Act. The consent decree provided: 

“Defendant is enjoined from denying applications for a change in the sex 

designation on persons’ existing Illinois birth records solely because those individuals 

have not undergone genital reconstruction surgery to match their internal sense of 

gender. This consent decree is not intended to change, alter or limit any other 

statutory requirement of the Illinois Vital Records Act [citation]. 

 * * * 

 Defendant shall, within thirty (30) days, post on the Illinois Department of Public 

Health website a clarification that genital reconstruction surgery is no longer a 

requirement for obtaining a change in the sex designation on an existing Illinois birth 

certificate.”

¶ 27 In this case, the defendant imposed a condition on the issuance of birth certificates not 

previously required under section 17(1)(d) and absent a change to section 17(1)(d). 

Therefore, the defendant exceeded his authority under the Vital Records Act and violated the 

plaintiffs’ and the class members’ rights under the Vital Records Act and their rights to 

privacy and due process under the Illinois Constitution. The injunctive and declaratory relief 

that was granted did not directly or adversely affect the State. The fact that the plaintiffs 

sought attorney fees and costs did not transform the plaintiffs’ lawsuit into one against the 

State. “[T]he mere fact that a successful action would cause money to be paid from the state 

treasury does not mean that the action is one against the State.” Wilson v. Quinn, 2013 IL 

App (5th) 120337, ¶ 15 (the plaintiffs’ suit seeking declaratory relief, costs and other 

equitable relief was not an attempt to impose liability in tort or contract on the State); in 

accord Illinois County Treasurers’ Ass’n v. Hamer, 2014 IL App (4th) 130286. 
- 7 - 

¶ 28 State Building Venture v. O’Donnell, 239 Ill. 2d 151 (2010), is distinguishable. In that 

case, count III of State Building Venture’s (SBV) complaint sought a declaratory judgment, 

finding that a lease, including renewal options, was binding, and to award costs, expenses 

and fees. State Building Venture, 239 Ill. 2d at 156. The supreme court found that “[i]n effect, 

count III of SBV’s complaint seeks a determination of its renewal rights, a claim founded on 

a contract entered into between SBV and the state. Additionally, count III of SBV’s 

‘declaratory judgment action’ asks for a finding that ‘the Enabling Statute authorized the 

State to enter into the Lease with [SBV].’ This claim falls squarely within the exclusive 

jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.” State Building Venture, 239 Ill. 2d at 164-65. In contrast, 

like the plaintiffs in Illinois County Treasurers’ Ass’n and Wilson, in the present case, the 

plaintiffs’ lawsuit was not an attempt to impose liability in contract or tort on the State. 

Therefore, the award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiffs was proper under the state 

officer exception to sovereign immunity. 

¶ 29 CONCLUSION 

¶ 30 We conclude that in section 5 of the Civil Rights Act, the State waived sovereign 

immunity when it consented to be sued, and in the absence of any language that limited its 

consent or exempted it from the provisions of section 5(c), the State’s consent extended to 

paying the plaintiffs, as prevailing parties, reasonable attorney fees and costs. We further 

conclude that the circuit court’s award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiffs was proper 

under the state officer exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. 

¶ 31 The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. 

¶ 32 Affirmed.