Cooper v. Salazar

• Decision Date: 15 November 1999
• Docket Number: No. 99-1474,99-1474
• Citation: 196 F.3d 809
• Parties: (7th Cir. 1999) Ricky Cooper, Anna Marie Klups, Chitunda Tillman, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Carlos J. Salazar, Director, Illinois Department of Human Rights, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 809

196 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 1999)

Ricky Cooper, Anna Marie Klups, Chitunda Tillman, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Carlos J. Salazar, Director, Illinois Department of Human Rights, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-1474

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Argued September 28, 1999

Decided November 15, 1999

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 98-C-2930--Milton I. Shadur, Judge. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] Before Bauer, Flaum and Diane P. Wood, Circuit Judges.

Flaum, Circuit Judge.

Carlos Salazar, Director of the Illinois Department of Human Rights, appeals the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction forestalling the implementation of two new procedural practices used in the Illinois Human Rights Commission's administrative process for investigating and resolving discrimination claims. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In 1980, the Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA" or the "Act"), 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/1 et seq., authorized the creation of two administrative agencies: the Department of Human Rights ("IDHR" or the "Department") and the Illinois Human Rights Commission ("IHRC" or the "Commission"). The Act also specified an administrative procedure by which these agencies provide the exclusive avenue for investigation and resolution of discrimination claims under the Illinois Constitution. See Mein v. Masonite Co., 485 N.E.2d 312, 315 (Ill. 1985) (holding IHRA is "the exclusive source for redress of alleged human rights violations"). Since their inception, the procedures specified by the Act have been amended several times. In 1992, we concluded that the procedures then in use by the IDHR and IHRC to resolve claims under the Act did not violate the Due Process Clause. Luckett v. Jett, 966 F.2d 209, 215 (7th Cir. 1992), aff'g Lemon v. Tucker, 695 F.Supp. 963 (N.D. Ill. 1988). Plaintiffs in this case request a return to the procedures we approved in Luckett. A brief description of those procedures follows.

Discrimination claims brought under the Illinois Constitution were filed by the claimant with the Department. The Department informed the respondent of the claim and conducted an informal investigation of the charges. The Department investigator decided which witnesses to contact and what questions to put to them. Witness interviews were often conducted ex parte, and parties were not permitted to question witnesses directly, although they could suggest questions to the investigator. As part of the investigation, the investigator usually conducted a fact-finding conference with the parties to gather evidence, identify issues and explore the possibility of settlement. This conference could not be recorded, although the parties and the investigator were allowed to take notes. Upon concluding the investigation, the investigator filed a report on each charge with the Director of the Department (the "Director"). The Director reviewed the report and determined whether there was substantial evidence that a civil rights violation had been committed. If the determination of substantial evidence turned on an issue of credibility, the Director entered a finding of substantial evidence, and credibility issues were resolved at the next stage of the proceedings.

Upon a finding of substantial evidence, further efforts were made to settle the claim. If those efforts failed, the Department filed a complaint with the Commission. A full hearing was conducted before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") who rendered a decision concerning the charge. At this hearing, parties were represented by counsel and procedural safeguards, such as the ability to cross-examine witnesses, were in place.

If the Director found there was no substantial evidence, the charge was dismissed. The claimant had no right to file his own complaint with the IHRC, but he could appeal the dismissal to the Commission and from there to the Illinois appellate court. At each level of review, the claimant could submit additional materials and argument in favor of his position. In order to prepare these materials, the claimant was given access to the investigation file and witness statements prior to the initial appeal.

In 1996, the Illinois legislature amended the IHRA, changing some of the administrative procedures used to resolve discrimination claims. For our purposes, the significant changes are: 1) the Department's Chief Legal Counsel (the "Counsel"), rather than the Commission, conducts the initial review of dismissals for lack of substantial evidence; 2) credibility determinations are made by the Department during the informal investigation process rather than by an ALJ at a formal Commission hearing; and 3) claimants are allowed access to the full investigation file and witness statements only after the Counsel renders his final decision concerning a dismissal rather than before this initial level of appeal. Other than these changes, the 1996 amendments left the process as it has been described above unchanged.

Plaintiffs brought a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 alleging that these three amendments to the IHRA's procedures violate their procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.¹ Plaintiffs petitioned the district court for preliminary injunctive relief from the new credibility determination and file access procedures.² The district court certified the class and granted a preliminary injunction against the Department, requiring it to return to using its pre-1996 procedures. The Department now appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Our review of a district court's grant of a preliminary injunction is deferential. See Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 390 (7th Cir. 1984) ("The question for us is whether the judge exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances, not what we would have done if we had been in his shoes."). However, because preliminary injunctions are an unusual remedy requiring the application of a definite set of standards, we subject them to "effective, and not merely perfunctory, appellate review." Id. at 389. We review the issuance of the injunction for abuse of discretion and "give substantial deference to the district court's discretionary acts of weighing evidence or balancing equitable factors." Advent Elec., Inc. v. Buckman, 112 F.3d 267, 274 (7th Cir. 1997). Within this more general assessment, we review specific findings of fact for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. Id.

B. Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that is only granted where there is a clear showing of need. Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) ("'[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.'") (quoting 11A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure sec. 2948, pp. 129-30 (2d ed. 1995)); see also Shaffer v. Globe Protection, Inc., 721 F.2d 1121, 1123 (7th Cir. 1983). Five factors figure into the determination of whether a preliminary injunction should be granted. See Roland Mach., 749 F.2d at 385-88. As a threshold matter, plaintiffs must show 1) a likelihood of success on the merits, 2) irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is denied, and 3) the inadequacy of any remedy at law. Once this threshold showing is made, the court balances 4) the harm to plaintiffs if the preliminary injunction were wrongfully denied against the harm to the defendant if the injunction were wrongfully granted, and 5) the impact on persons not directly concerned in the dispute (the "public interest"). Id.; see also Platinum Home Mortgage Corp. v. Platinum Fin. Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 722, 726 (7th Cir. 1998).

After applying these five factors to the claims brought by plaintiffs concerning the IHRA's new procedures for making credibility determinations and for the timing of file access, the district court granted a preliminary injunction as to each claim. We now consider the appropriateness of that action.

1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Plaintiffs contend that two of the 1996 changes to the administrative procedure for investigating and adjudicating discrimination claims under the Illinois Constitution violate their Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights. As an initial matter, plaintiffs must show a likelihood of success on the merits of these claims. The threshold for this showing is low. See Roland Mach., 749 F.2d at 387. Plaintiffs need only demonstrate a "better than negligible chance of succeeding." Boucher v. School Bd. of Greenfield, 134 F.3d 821, 824 (7th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted).

To determine whether the Due Process Clause has been violated, we engage in a two-part analysis. First, we consider whether plaintiffs have been deprived of a liberty or property interest. Then, we determine "what process is due." Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972). In answer to the first question, it is undisputed that dismissal of plaintiffs' IHRA discrimination claims is a deprivation of a property interest. In Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., the Supreme Court held that dismissal of a claim under the Illinois Fair Employment Practices Act, the predecessor to the IHRA, deprives the claimant of "a species of property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause." 455 U.S. 422, 428, 433 (1982). Therefore, we need only concern ourselves with the second question: whether the amended IHRA procedures provide sufficient process before that deprivation occurs.

Due process requires "the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (...