Court Opinion

ID: 9911849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 21:04:31.502209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:33.254498
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 211525-U
                                            No. 1-21-1525
                                    Order filed December 20, 2023
                                                                                       Third Division

 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
 limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
 ______________________________________________________________________________
                                                IN THE
                                  APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                          FIRST DISTRICT
 ______________________________________________________________________________
 LAVELLE DELANEY,                                               )   Appeal from the
                                                                )   Circuit Court of
           Plaintiff-Appellant,                                 )   Cook County
                                                                )
     v.                                                         )   No. 21 M1 13794
                                                                )
 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT                                          )
 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,                                        )   Honorable
                                                                )   Maire Aileen Dempsey,
           Defendant-Appellee.                                  )   Judge, presiding

           PRESIDING JUSTICE REYES delivered the judgment of the court.
           Justices Lampkin and R. Van Tine concurred in the judgment.

                                              ORDER

¶1        Held: We affirm the judgment of the trial court when appellant has failed to furnish a
                sufficient record such that error can be determined.

¶2        Plaintiff Lavelle Delaney appeals pro se from the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor

of defendant, the “U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.” On appeal, plaintiff

contends that defendant violated federal law, acted in a “biased manner,” and provided “improper”
No. 1-21-1525

proceedings. Plaintiff further contends that the trial court erred when it denied him a preliminary

injunction. We affirm.

¶3      The record on appeal does not contain a report of proceedings. The following facts are

gleaned from the common law record, which includes plaintiff’s complaint and the trial court’s

orders. 1

¶4      On August 13, 2021, plaintiff filed a “negligence” complaint against defendant in the

circuit court alleging that he suffered injury and emotional distress as a result of defendant’s

“breach in duty and fairness” in the investigation of his discrimination charge. According to

plaintiff’s complaint, he was hired by the City of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation in

2014. In 2016, after a “rumor” that he was “gay,” he experienced gender and sexual orientation

discrimination and was denied “opportunities and training.” Plaintiff complained to a supervisor

and then notified the City of Chicago Department of Human Resources. However, “no action” was

taken. The complaint further alleged that on March 19, 2018, plaintiff filed discrimination charges

with the Illinois Department of Human Rights and defendant. The complaint finally alleged that

the discrimination charge filed with defendant was assigned number 440-2018-03601 and later

dismissed. The complaint sought damages, a declaratory judgment that defendant violated federal

law, and remand so that defendant could “try” plaintiff’s case in a “fresh and fair manner.”

¶5      Attached in support was, relevant here, a copy of a discrimination charge filed with the

Illinois Department of Human Rights on March 19, 2018. 2 Also attached was a November 29,

2019, letter from the City of Chicago Department of Human Resources to plaintiff stating that its

        1
         Many of the complaint’s attachments are illegible.
        2
         While this document is largely illegible, the heading identifying the Illinois Department of Human
Rights and a file-stamp “RECEIVED EEOC” are clear.

                                                   -2-
No. 1-21-1525

investigation into “EEO File No. 2017 EEO 50” determined that plaintiff’s allegations were

“sustained in part,” meaning that a violation of the City of Chicago’s “Equal Employment

Opportunity Policy” was found as to some allegations. An additional attachment was charge

number 2020 CN 2561, filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights on July 16, 2020,

alleging that staff at the Department of Streets and Sanitation were “encouraged” to retaliate

against plaintiff because he filed a discrimination charge with defendant.

¶6     On October 4, 2021, the trial court entered an order finding defendant in default for failure

to file an appearance and answer and setting the cause for a prove-up.

¶7     On November 1, 2021, the trial court entered judgment for defendant without prejudice in

a written order. The order states that plaintiff was present, and that the trial court had jurisdiction

and was “fully advised.” This appeal followed.

¶8     On April 12, 2023, this court entered an order taking the case for consideration on the

record and plaintiff’s brief only. See First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp.,

63 Ill. 2d 128, 133 (1976) (a reviewing court may decide a case on an appellant’s brief alone “if

the record is simple and the claimed errors are such that the court can easily decide them without

the aid of an appellee’s brief”).

¶9     On appeal, plaintiff contends that defendant violated federal law. He further contends that

the trial court erred by holding that he could not “sue” defendant for negligence and denying him

a preliminary injunction.

¶ 10   Initially, our review of plaintiff’s appeal is hindered by his failure to fully comply with

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341 (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 341(e) a

“brief shall be served upon each other party to the appeal represented by separate counsel” and

                                                 -3-
No. 1-21-1525

“[p]roof of service shall be filed with all briefs.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(e) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). Here,

although a proof of service is attached to plaintiff’s pro se brief, it appears to be missing several

pages and does not identify the date and time of mailing or the address of the post office or mailbox

used to mail a copy of the brief to defendant. Therefore, it is not entirely clear whether plaintiff’s

pro se brief was actually mailed to defendant.

¶ 11    Additionally, plaintiff has failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 341(h), which

provides that an appellant’s brief should contain a statement of “the facts necessary to an

understanding of the case, stated accurately and fairly without argument or comment,” and an

argument “which shall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with

citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(6), (7) (eff.

Oct. 1, 2020). Here, plaintiff’s brief provides no citations to the record and fails to articulate a legal

argument which would allow a meaningful review of his claims. “Arguments that do not comply

with Rule 341(h)(7) do not merit consideration on appeal and may be rejected by this court for that

reason alone.” Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sanders, 2015 IL App (1st) 141272, ¶ 43. Accordingly,

to the extent that plaintiff’s brief fails to comply with Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7), his arguments

are forfeited.

¶ 12    Considering the content of plaintiff’s brief, it would be within our discretion to dismiss this

appeal. See Epstein v. Galuska, 362 Ill. App. 3d 36, 42 (2005). As it is clear that plaintiff challenges

the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of defendant, we choose not to do so. See Twardowski

v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 321 Ill. App. 3d 509, 511 (2001) (while the insufficiency

of a plaintiff’s brief hinders review, reviewing court may choose to consider the merits of a case

                                                  -4-
No. 1-21-1525

when they can be ascertained from the record on appeal). Nevertheless, deficiencies in the record

on appeal still prevent us from reaching this appeal on the merits.

¶ 13    On appeal, the appellant, in this case plaintiff, has the burden to provide a complete record

for review in the appellate court to support a claim of error. Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389,

391 (1984). If no such record is provided, “it will be presumed that the order entered by the trial

court was in conformity with law and had a sufficient factual basis.” Id. at 392. This is because, in

order to determine whether there was actually an error, a reviewing court must have a record before

it to review. Id.

¶ 14    Here, the record reveals that the trial court found defendant in default on October 4, 2021,

and entered judgment in favor of defendant on November 1, 2021. However, the record on appeal

does not contain a report of proceedings from either court date or an acceptable substitute such as

a bystander’s report or agreed statement of facts pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323. See

Ill. S. Ct. R. 323(a), (c), (d) (eff. July 1, 2017). Without a transcript or an acceptable substitute

from these court dates, we are unable to determine what evidence was admitted or excluded or

what arguments were made. Additionally, although plaintiff asserts in his brief that the trial court

held that he could not “sue” defendant for negligence, absent a report of proceedings, we have no

knowledge of the trial court’s reasoning and specific findings which underlie its November 1,

2021, order. Under these circumstances, we must presume that the court acted in conformity with

the law and properly entered judgment for defendant based upon the evidence before it. Corral v.

Mervis Industries, Inc., 217 Ill. 2d 144, 156-57 (2005). In the absence of a report of proceedings

or other record of these hearings, we have no basis for disturbing the trial court’s judgment. Foutch,

99 Ill. 2d at 391-92.

                                                -5-
No. 1-21-1525

¶ 15   For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.

¶ 16   Affirmed.

                                              -6-