Champaign-Urbana Pub. Health Dist. v. Ill. Human Rights Comm'n
| Docket Number | S. 4-20-0357,4-20-0358 cons. |
| Decision Date | 14 April 2022 |
| Parties | The CHAMPAIGN-URBANA PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. The ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, the Department of Human Rights, and Patricia Hunt, Respondents. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Ruth E. Wyman, of Ruth E. Wyman Law Office LLC, of Urbana, for petitioner.
Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, of Chicago (Jane Elinor Notz, Solicitor General, and David E. Neumeister, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for respondents Illinois Human Rights Commission and Department of Human Rights.
Donald R. Jackson, of Peoria, for other respondent.
¶ 1 This case stems from a series of employment decisions between the parties and raises the question of whether they were racially motivated. The first decision, in 2004, involved a demotion and decrease in salary. The second decision, in 2006, involved a series of failures to promote an ostensibly qualified applicant.
¶ 4 Patricia Hunt, an African American, was a long-time public health nurse at the Champaign-Urbana Public Health District (District). In November 2004, Hunt's job title was program coordinator of community health nurses. As part of a restructuring that same month, the District eliminated Hunt's program coordinator position and demoted her back to her prior position, which was public health nurse I.
¶ 5 In January 2005, Hunt filed a charge of racial discrimination against the District in the Department of Human Rights (Department) based on the demotion, alleging (1) that she continued to perform the duties of a program coordinator but at a decreased salary and (2) a similarly situated white employee, when her coordinator position was eliminated in 2003, (a) also continued to perform the same (program coordinator) duties but (b) was demoted to a public health nurse II (a higher paying job title) without a decrease in salary.
¶ 7 In 2005 and 2006, Hunt twice applied for a nursing services manager position and twice applied for a public health nurse II position. In January 2006, the District hired a white applicant, Sylvia Link, for the nursing services manager position. In June 2006, the District again hired a white applicant, Jamie Perry, for the nursing service manager position (which was unexpectedly vacated by Link).
¶ 8 Later in June 2006, the District hired a white applicant, Ellen Weise, for a public health nurse II position. When Weise also unexpectedly left, the District hired Andrea Taylor, another white applicant, to fill the public health nurse II position.
¶ 9 In December 2006, Hunt filed additional charges of racial discrimination with the Department against the District based on these four hiring decisions, in which she alleged she was more qualified than the white applicants. Hunt retired from the District in 2007.
¶ 11 Both the demotion case and the failure to promote case proceeded to separate evidentiary hearings in front of the same administrative law judge (ALJ). In January 2014, in the demotion case, the ALJ entered a recommended order and decision (ROD) concluding Hunt failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of race discrimination and recommended dismissal. In February 2015, the ALJ entered a similar ROD with similar findings in the failure to promote case.
¶ 12 In both cases, Hunt filed exceptions to the RODs with the Illinois Human Rights Commission (Commission) challenging the ALJ's findings. The District filed responses to Hunt's exceptions.
¶ 13 In 2017, the Commission reviewed the ROD in each case and voted not to adopt the recommendations, concluding instead that Hunt had proved her charges of race discrimination. In May 2019, the Commission entered two separate remand orders, explaining its findings and remanding to the ALJ for determinations as to damages.
¶ 14 In 2019, the ALJ entered supplemental RODs in which the ALJ challenged the Commission's authority to enter the remand orders because the terms of office of some of the commissioners who entered the remand orders had expired before those orders were entered. In 2020, the Commission sua sponte struck the supplemental RODs, reaffirmed its prior remand orders, and remanded again for damages determinations.
¶ 15 Later in 2020, the ALJ entered second supplemental RODs awarding damages. In the demotion case, the ALJ awarded Hunt $7629 in back wages, plus attorney fees and costs. In the failure to promote case, the ALJ awarded $40,987 in back wages, plus attorney fees and costs. Neither party filed any exceptions to the second supplemental RODs, which, by law, became the final orders of the Commission.
¶ 16 In this court, the District sought direct administrative review of the final orders in each case, and this court consolidated the cases on appeal.
¶ 18 The State respondents—namely, the Commission and the Department (hereinafter collectively the State)—argue this court lacks jurisdiction to review the Commission's decisions because the District did not exhaust its administrative remedies. Alternatively, the State argues that the Commission's findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 19 The District, meanwhile, argues that the Commission's remand orders are void because they bear the signatures of commissioners whose terms had expired when the orders were issued. In the alternative, the District contends the Commission's findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence in each case because Hunt failed to (1) establish a prima facie case of race discrimination and (2) demonstrate that the District's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for taking actions against Hunt were a pretext for race discrimination.
¶ 20 We address each argument in turn and conclude as follows: (1) the State has not demonstrated that the District failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, (2) the Commission's remand orders were valid, (3) the Commission's finding of race discrimination in the demotion case was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and (4) the Commission's finding in the failure to promote case was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
¶ 22 As an initial matter, we note that the arguments in this case relate only to the Commission's ultimate findings and their validity. Accordingly, we begin where the parties begin in their briefs, with the evidentiary hearings in each case.
¶ 24 In August 2011, the ALJ conducted an evidentiary hearing on Hunt's charge of race discrimination in her 2004 demotion. Hunt alleged that in November of 2004 she was demoted from program coordinator of community health nurses (a management position) to a public health nurse I, which resulted in a decrease in salary, while a similarly situated white employee, Karen McKinzie, was demoted in July 2003 from a program coordinator position to a public health nurse II position with no change in salary. The District admitted that Hunt (1) was a member of a protected class, (2) was meeting job performance expectations, and (3) suffered an adverse employment action—namely, a demotion with a decrease in salary. The District denied that McKinzie was a similarly situated employee and maintained that Hunt was demoted because her position was eliminated as part of the District's restructuring effort to increase the efficiency of its services.
¶ 27 David King testified that he was the administrator of the District from August 1999 to 2005. In that position, King was essentially the executive director of the agency and reported to the Champaign-Urbana Board of Health (Board), who were elected officials. King explained that the District provided a variety of services to the public such as immunizations, physicals, and diagnosis and testing of sexually transmitted diseases
. It also provided educational information geared towards preventative care.
¶ 28 When he began as administrator, the District was separated by profession. In other words, there were divisions of nutritionists, nurses, and social workers, among other divisions. King wanted to reorganize the District by what services were being provided, which he believed would help increase efficiency and cooperation, thereby providing better services.
¶ 29 In the fall of 2002, the District hired Sylvia Coronado-Romero as director of human resources. At King's and the Board's request, Coronado-Romero undertook an in-depth review of the job and salary structure at the District. As part of this effort, the division directors and their managerial staff reviewed, updated, and rewrote the job descriptions at the District so they could reorganize employee classifications into a new cohesive scheme. Eventually, the directors and Coronado-Romero put together a recommendation of new job descriptions, titles, and salaries to be applied to all the positions in the District, which the Board approved and implemented in July 2003.
¶ 30 Under the new arrangement, if a reclassified employee moved to a position with a higher salary, that employee would receive that higher salary. Employees reclassified into positions with lower pay would maintain their current salary but would not receive increases until the periodic cost of living adjustments caught up to their current salary....
To continue reading
Request your trial