Cook Cnty. Sheriff's Office v. Cook Cnty. Comm'n on Human Rights, No. 1–15–0718.
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
| Writing for the Court | Justice HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. |
| Citation | 403 Ill.Dec. 507,53 N.E.3d 1144 |
| Parties | The COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Petitioner–Appellant, v. The COOK COUNTY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS and Cynthia Walker, Respondents–Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 20 May 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 1–15–0718. |
53 N.E.3d 1144
403 Ill.Dec. 507
The COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Petitioner–Appellant
v.
The COOK COUNTY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS and Cynthia Walker, Respondents–Appellees.
No. 1–15–0718.
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division.
May 20, 2016.
Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, Chicago (Daniel F. Gallagher, Donald J. Pechous, and Scott A. Golden, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant.
Randall A. Wolff, Ellen Grennier, and Theresa Grant, Randall A. Wolff & Associates, Ltd., Arlington Heights, for appellee.
OPINION
Justice HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
¶ 1 The petitioner, Cynthia Walker, filed a claim with the Cook County Commission on Human Rights (Commission), alleging that she was subjected to ongoing sexual and age discrimination and harassment in violation of section 42–35 of the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance (Ordinance) (Cook County Code of Ordinances §§ 42–35(b)(1)), (e) (amended Nov. 19, 2002), while at her job at the Department of Corrections (DOC). The Commission found in favor of the petitioner, and the circuit court confirmed the Commission's decision on review pursuant to a writ of certiorari. The Cook County Sheriff's Office (Sheriff's Office) now appeals, raising as issues whether: (1) the Commission's determination that the petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment was against the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) the Commission erred in expanding the definition of age discrimination under the Ordinance to include harassment based upon age, or, alternatively (3) its finding of age-related harassment was against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) the Commission exceeded its authority under the Ordinance in issuing certain injunctive
relief, or (5) the injunctive relief as ordered was clearly erroneous. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶ 2 The petitioner filed a complaint with the Commission on March 20, 2008, alleging that, beginning in April 2004 and continuing through late 2008, her coworker and eventual supervisor, Antonio Belk, subjected her to ongoing sexual discrimination by engaging in unwanted physical contact with her and making sexual remarks. The petitioner also alleged that, on numerous occasions beginning in September 2007 and continuing through 2008, Belk made age-related jokes and derogatory comments towards her, in many instances in front of colleagues. Belk's alleged sexual and age-related harassment of the petitioner continued unabated despite her complaints to the director of her department, Andrew Krok.
¶ 3 Beginning on December 10, 2010, the matter proceeded to a hearing involving the testimony of numerous witnesses, including the petitioner and Belk. The petitioner testified that she was 54 years of age and had been married for 35 years. In April 2004, she began working at the DOC in the department of Management Information Systems (MIS). The petitioner stated that she was hired as a computer operator, but that she was subsequently recruited to design multiple databases for MIS.
¶ 4 Shortly after the petitioner began working at MIS, Belk, a jail supervisor, approached her and requested her help in designing a program services database. Belk worked in a different office than the petitioner at that time; however, the database project caused the two to come into fairly regular contact. The testimony of Krok and Belk established that, although Belk had used computers for work, he had extremely limited knowledge about programming and could not effectively supervise employees with greater expertise on programming projects.
¶ 5 The petitioner testified that, on several occasions in 2004 and early 2005, while she was involved with Belk's database project, he engaged in acts that made her feel very uncomfortable, including massaging her shoulders, trying to kiss her, touching her face and hair, and hugging her. She described an incident in May 2004 when Belk was at her desk discussing the database project, and then walked behind her and began massaging her shoulders and invited her to dinner twice. The petitioner asked Belk to stop touching her, stating that she was happily married and was not interested. She also advised Belk that the work he was giving her was causing her to fall behind in her own job and that he should obtain approval from the MIS supervisor before giving her additional work.
¶ 6 During her testimony, the petitioner frequently refreshed her recollection regarding dates and other details by referring to her personal journal (journal), which she had kept since she began employment with the DOC. The journal was admitted into evidence by stipulation of the parties. According to the petitioner, she tried to consistently record events at work that were upsetting to her. However, although the journal included a description of the incident in May of 2004, it made little or no mention of any other alleged physical advances during the time between April 2004 and mid–2005. The petitioner testified that, at first, she did not consider Belk's contact to be sexual “harassment” because he occasionally hugged other employees in the department. However, he soon began treating her differently from everyone else in the office.
¶ 7 The petitioner testified that, on more than one occasion, she informed the current MIS director, Lisa Dowdell, about Belk's behavior and stated that she believed
it would continue unless Dowdell did something about it. The petitioner then spoke to the subsequent MIS director, Dwayne Peterson, who told her to let him know if Belk approached her again. After the petitioner finished the database project in August 2005, she had little contact with Belk for over one year.
¶ 8 In August 2006, Krok became the director of MIS. Krok testified that, shortly thereafter, Belk was transferred from the jail into MIS and became his second-in-command, making Belk the petitioner's direct supervisor. The petitioner testified that she had a meeting with Krok at the time of Belk's transfer and informed him about her prior issues with Belk, stating that she did not want to be assigned to work under him. According to the petitioner, Krok assured her that he would intervene if necessary, and she promised to report to him if the situation with Belk “got out of hand.” Belk formally became the petitioner's supervisor in September or October of 2006.
¶ 9 The petitioner testified that, almost immediately after Belk's appointment as her supervisor, Belk's unwanted physical advances and sexual remarks resumed, and continued through 2007. The petitioner stated that Belk repeatedly tried to hug and kiss her, but she pushed him away and told him to stop. Belk would massage her shoulders while she was in her chair, run his hands through her hair, hug her and try to touch her face, despite her ongoing protests. The petitioner stated that Belk began using profane language during these episodes, and occasionally made reference to her husband. At one point in December 2006, she knocked Belk's hand away and told him to keep his hands off of her. Later in the day, Belk told the petitioner to “shut up” and sit her “old ass down.”
¶ 10 The petitioner also testified that, from late 2006 through 2007, Belk regularly and persistently made negative comments about her age in front of other MIS employees. Although the petitioner viewed the comments as childish banter in the beginning and made efforts at joking responses, she testified that Belk soon got “out of hand.” His comments included referring to the petitioner as the “old dude,” and stating that the petitioner was the “oldest ass” walking around there; she was older than God; older than “motherf* * * shit” or older than dirt; and that she wore “old ass” clothes. The petitioner also stated that, beginning in September of 2007, Belk regularly began the workday by singing “Old Fogey from Musgokee” to her in front of her coworkers.
¶ 11 In addition, according to the petitioner, Belk frequently gave her programming duties without following MIS protocol, which required that all work orders go through Krok. The petitioner described these projects as above and beyond those she was expected to do as part of her job. One such project was for the petitioner to do Belk's homework for a computer class that he was taking on his own time. The petitioner testified that she completed homework assignments for Belk for nearly one year. She complained to Krok about the extraneous projects, and Belk later confronted her, warning her to watch what she said to Krok about him and that his “ass was covered.”
¶ 12 The petitioner described an incident in January of 2007, during which Belk attempted to place her into a headlock as she walked down the hallway. The petitioner testified that she felt like she was being attacked and was initially unable to break free from Belk's grip. When she did break free, her hair was “all over [her] head.” The incident occurred in the presence of other coworkers, including LaJuana...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cigna v. Ill. Human Rights Comm'n, Nos. 1-19-0620
...Law or its predecessor); see also Cook County Sheriff's Office v. Cook County Comm'n on Human Rights , 2016 IL App (1st) 150718, ¶ 27, 403 Ill.Dec. 507, 53 N.E.3d 1144 (noting that the Act has not expressly adopted the Administrative Review Law).4 We note that, on appeal, the State responde......
-
Rector v. Steckenrider, Case No. 14-CV-878-NJR-RJD
...to sustain a finding of sexual harassment under the IHRA. See, e.g., Cook Cty. Sheriff's Office v. Cook Cty. Com'n on Human Rights, 53 N.E.3d 1144, 1153 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). Nonetheless, even when looking closely at the IHRA's definition of sexual harassment, Rector has failed to establish......
-
Gabeau v. Starnes, Case No. 18-cv-2114-SMY
...that a reasonable person would find to be hostile or abusive. See Cook Co. Sheriff's Office v. Cook Co. Com'n on Human Rights, 53 N.E.3d 1144, 1153 (Ill. App. 2016). As previously noted, Starnes' comments cannot be considered severe or pervasive as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Defendan......
-
Cigna v. Ill. Human Rights Comm'n, Nos. 1-19-0620
...Law or its predecessor); see also Cook County Sheriff's Office v. Cook County Comm'n on Human Rights , 2016 IL App (1st) 150718, ¶ 27, 403 Ill.Dec. 507, 53 N.E.3d 1144 (noting that the Act has not expressly adopted the Administrative Review Law).4 We note that, on appeal, the State responde......
-
Rector v. Steckenrider, Case No. 14-CV-878-NJR-RJD
...to sustain a finding of sexual harassment under the IHRA. See, e.g., Cook Cty. Sheriff's Office v. Cook Cty. Com'n on Human Rights, 53 N.E.3d 1144, 1153 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). Nonetheless, even when looking closely at the IHRA's definition of sexual harassment, Rector has failed to establish......
-
Gabeau v. Starnes, Case No. 18-cv-2114-SMY
...that a reasonable person would find to be hostile or abusive. See Cook Co. Sheriff's Office v. Cook Co. Com'n on Human Rights, 53 N.E.3d 1144, 1153 (Ill. App. 2016). As previously noted, Starnes' comments cannot be considered severe or pervasive as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Defendan......