Court Opinion

ID: 9860535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:25:15.11915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:16:11.459022
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE REINHARD, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion because I believe the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff’s complaint for administrative review by virtue of plaintiff's failure to name the Director of the Department of Employment Security as a party to the judicial proceeding. First, by focusing only on section 3 — 107 of the Administrative Review Law (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 3—107) as to who shall be named a defendant, the majority’s interpretation effectively renders as meaningless the language of section 1100 of “An Act in relation to a system of unemployment insurance” which states, “The director shall be deemed to be a party to any judicial action involving such decision and shall be represented by the Attorney General.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 48, par. 520.) Such an interpretation is contrary to the rule of statutory construction that courts will not construe a statute in such a way as to make a provision meaningless. Niven v. Siqueira (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 357, 365. Secondly, in Strang v. Department of Transportation (1990), 206 Ill. App. 3d 368, 372, the plaintiff therein conceded that the Director of the Department of Employment Security, among others, was a necessary party. The appellate court did not disagree with this concession and found that, absent contrary instructions from the supreme court, Lockett v. Chicago Police Board (1990), 133 Ill. 2d 349, was to be applied retroactively and that the circuit court therefore lacked jurisdiction to review the administrative agency’s decision. (Strang, 206 Ill. App. 3d at 373.) In this case, because Lockett is to be applied retroactively and plaintiff’s complaint failed to name the Director of the Department of Employment Security, a necessary party to the circuit court proceedings, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the complaint for administrative review. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the circuit court on this basis and reinstate the decision of the Board of Review. I express no opinion on the propriety of the remainder of the majority’s opinion.