Luckett v. Jett

• Decision Date: 23 June 1992
• Docket Number: No. 89-2529,89-2529
• Citation: 966 F.2d 209
• Parties: Steve LUCKETT, individually and as representative of the class of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Helen R. JETT, * individually and in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Human Rights, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 209

966 F.2d 209

Steve LUCKETT, individually and as representative of the class of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Helen R. JETT, ^* individually and in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Human Rights, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 89-2529.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Argued May 17, 1990.

Decided Feb. 4, 1992.

As Amended on Denial of Petition for

Rehearing with Suggestion for Rehearing

In Banc June 23, 1992.

Gary H. Palm, Lori A. Irish, Jeffrey Alperin, Geoffrey Liebmann, Robert S. Ryland Robert R. Cohen, Herbert Bates, Bobbitt & Associates, Chicago, Ill., Judy Bachman (argued), Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, c/o Robert R. Cohen, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellant.

Jeffrey W. Finke (argued), Rosalyn B. Kaplan, Asst. Attys. Gen., Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee.

Charles C. Jackson, Jeffrey S. Heller, Mark A. Weintraub, Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Chicago, Ill., for amicus curiae.

Before CUMMINGS and KANNE, Circuit Judges, and SNEED, Senior Circuit Judge. ^**

KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs brought this class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the constitutionality of the procedures for processing discrimination claims under the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA), Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 68, §§ 1-101 to 9-102 (1987). Following discovery, both the plaintiffs and defendant Joyce Tucker, Director of the Illinois Department of Human Rights (DHR), filed motions for summary judgment. The district court held that while the IHRA procedures as originally enacted did not comport with due process, any such constitutional deprivations were cured by the subsequent amendments to the IHRA passed on September 24, 1987. Accordingly, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in favor of those plaintiffs who had filed claims prior to the enactment of the IHRA amendments, and granted Tucker's motion for summary judgment against all other claimants. Lemon v. Tucker, 695 F.Supp. 963 (NDIL 1988). The court also held that those plaintiffs who did not enjoy the benefits of the IHRA amendments could have their claims reinvestigated in light of the new procedures, but this conclusion was later vacated after the court granted Tucker's motion for reconsideration and determined that such retroactive relief was inappropriate. The plaintiffs now appeal from both of the district court's rulings in favor of the defendant. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

I.

The history and facts of this litigation are fully discussed in the district court opinion, Lemon, 695 F.Supp. at 963-967, and need only brief mention here. The IHRA was enacted to create a state cause of action for various civil rights violations amounting to discrimination based on race, sex, handicap, religion, age, unfavorable military discharge, marital status, and other factors. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 68, §§ 1-102(A). The plaintiffs, certified as a class on July 16, 1987, ¹ brought this suit alleging that the IHRA procedures used to evaluate discrimination claims violated their fourteenth amendment due process and equal protection rights. ² After discovery, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, claiming that Tucker and the Illinois Department of Human Rights (DHR) deprived them of due process in two specific ways: (1) by dismissing their discrimination charges without allowing them to view the evidence submitted by a respondent; and (2) by dismissing the discrimination charges which involve credibility determinations without a full evidentiary hearing. Tucker responded by cross-claiming for summary judgment. She argued that the due process standards for the plaintiffs' type of claims were minimal, and that the IHRA procedures--especially those added by the September 24, 1987 amendments--sufficiently protected their due process rights.

In a memorandum decision issued on September 21, 1988, the district court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The court held that those class members whose claims were subject to the procedures existing before the IHRA was amended had been denied due process, since they were not guaranteed notice of the defenses which employers might raise against their claims or a chance to reply to those defenses; the court therefore determined that these claims should be re-opened and evaluated under the amended IHRA. The court, however, also granted Tucker's motion for summary judgment in its entirety with respect to those claims filed after the enactment of the IHRA amendments. In reaching this conclusion, the court determined that the IHRA amendments cured any alleged due process violations, even though the plaintiffs were not entitled access to all supporting evidence. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' request for evidentiary hearings with the right to cross-examination in matters raising material credibility disputes.

On March 8, 1989, the district court granted Tucker's motion for reconsideration and held that the retroactive relief it had previously authorized was inappropriate under this court's decision in Sanchez v. Miller, 792 F.2d 694 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1056, 107 S.Ct. 933, 93 L.Ed.2d 984 (1987):

The court finds the Sanchez analysis particularly instructive here. The procedural deprivation found here, although significant, did not so undermine the proceedings that the results of the proceedings completely lack legitimacy. Rather, plaintiffs here were still afforded a full and complete investigation by a department investigator. In contrast, the administrative burden of reopening appropriate cases, whether respondent's or plaintiff's number are used, is substantial. Balanced against the magnitude of the burden, the court finds that the incremental benefit of a new investigation to plaintiffs is not warranted.

This appeal followed.

II.

We first examine whether the district court correctly concluded that retroactive relief was inappropriate under Sanchez. In Sanchez, this court held that due process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings could not be applied retroactively so as to require that all prison records containing determinations of misconduct, not in accord with the adequate procedures, be expunged; we reasoned that the legitimacy of the prison proceedings were not so undermined by the procedural defects that the administrative burden of a retroactive decision could properly be imposed on prison officials. Sanchez, 792 F.2d at 701. Here, the plaintiffs contend that the district court committed reversible error by applying the balancing test of Sanchez--rather than the general retroactivity analysis of Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971)--because its precedential authority is limited to prisoner or criminal cases. According to the plaintiffs, a sound application of the Chevron analysis would have produced a far different outcome than that reached by the district court. The plaintiffs therefore conclude that those claims which were filed between 1981 and 1987 and dismissed without a finding of substantial evidence in their favor should be reopened and reprocessed for a second time by the DHR. ³

We begin our analysis by reviewing the principles enunciated in Chevron. ⁴ In Chevron, the Supreme Court fashioned a three-part test to identify situations in which a civil, nonconstitutional precedent should be applied on a prospective basis only: (1) does the decision "establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which the litigants may have relied, ... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed?"; (2) considering the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, "does retroactive application "further or retard" the operation of the rule?"; and (3) does retroactive application create "injustice or hardship" for one of the parties? Chevron, 404 U.S. at 106-107, 92 S.Ct. at 355. Since there is a presumption favoring retroactivity in civil cases, all three Chevron factors must support prospective application in order to limit the retroactive effect of the decision. NLRB v. Lyon & Ryan Ford, Inc., 647 F.2d 745, 757 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 894, 102 S.Ct. 391, 70 L.Ed.2d 209 (1981); Schaefer v. First Nat'l Bank, 509 F.2d 1287, 1294 (7th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 943, 96 S.Ct. 1682, 48 L.Ed.2d 186 (1976). But see Austin v. City of Bisbee, 855 F.2d 1429, 1433 (9th Cir.1988) (all factors need not support prospective application).

We have been unable to uncover any authority squarely determining whether Sanchez's precedential value is limited to the retroactive effect of expanded procedural protections in prison hearings. However, we need not address this issue, for retroactive relief would be inappropriate here even under the Chevron analysis.

First, the district court's decision established a new principle of law which was not clearly foreshadowed by earlier precedent. The plaintiffs have not cited any case--aside from the district court opinion below--which has held that the due process clause mandates that the employer shall submit a verified answer and that the claimant may submit a reply or supplemental reply "at any time." See Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 68, § 7-102(B). Nor can the district court's holding be fairly regarded as "foreshadowed" by prior case law. ⁵ Quite the contrary, since 1975 Illinois courts have consistently rejected any attempt to expand the procedural requirements beyond those expressly set forth in the IHRA. See Klein v. FEPC, 31 Ill.App.3d 473, 334 N.E.2d 370 (1st Dist.1975); Board of Governors v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, 109 Ill.App.3d 946, 65 Ill.Dec. 478, 441 N.E.2d 391 (4th Dist.1982); Castillo v. Human Rights Commission, 159 Ill.App.3d 158, 111 Ill.Dec. 168, 512 N.E.2d 72 (1st Dist.1987); Jabbari v. Human Rights Commission, 173...