Court Opinion

ID: 9744362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:01:27.761903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:48.781300
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE O’HARA FROSSARD, dissenting: The standard of review is whether the chief legal counsel, or her designee, abused her discretion in sustaining the Department’s initial dismissal of Horen’s civil rights charge for “lack of substantial evidence.” Traficano v. Department of Human Rights, 297 Ill. App. 3d 435, 439 (1998). Moren is required to provide the Department, and then the Designee, a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination by substantial evidence and proof of pretext by substantial evidence. McConnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973); Zaderaka v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n, 131 Ill. 2d 172 (1989). “Substantial evidence is evidence which a reasonable mind accepts as sufficient to support a particular conclusion and which consists of more than a mere scintilla but may be somewhat less than a preponderance.” 775 ILCS 5/7A — 102(D)(2) (West 2000). The record reflects that Moren has supplied the Designee with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that genuine issues of material fact exist as to each element of her two-count complaint and as to the issue of pretext. Moreover, regarding the issue of pretext, the record reflects evidence that Moren did not recommend any benefit to M. Wilson that he was not otherwise entitled to receive. Based on the record, the Designee’s decision to affirm the Department’s dismissal of Horen’s charge of unlawful discrimination regarding the following two counts: count B, alleging Moren was subjected to unlawful harassment because of her race, white, and her race-related activities with race black individuals; and count C, alleging unfair discharge based upon her race, white, and race-related activity (biracial child) constitutes an abuse of discretion. I would reverse the initial “lack of substantial evidence” findings made by the Designee as to both counts and remand the case for further investigation. I respectfully dissent.