Cruz v. Illinois Human Rights Commission , 2024 IL App (1st) 221952-U ( 2024 )

2024 IL App (1st) 221952-USECOND DIVISION
February 13, 2024
No. 1-22-1952
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in
the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
___________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
____________________________________________________________________________
JERICO MATIAS CRUZ, )
) Petition for Review of an Order of
Petitioner, ) the Illinois Human Rights
) Commission
v. )
)
ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, )
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ) Charge No. 2021 CP 2416
RIGHTS, and FIFTH THIRD BANK, )
)
Respondents. )
______________________________________________________________________________
JUSTICE ELLIS delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Howse and Justice Cobbs concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Affirmed. Commission did not abuse discretion in sustaining dismissal of charge
for failure to proceed, as Department was unable to reach petitioner after multiple
attempts at contact, and petitioner offered insufficient reasons for failing to respond.
¶2 In October 2021, petitioner Jerico Cruz filed with the Illinois Department of Human
Rights (Department) a sworn charge of discrimination against respondent Fifth Third Bank.
Petitioner alleged that Fifth Third denied him full and equal enjoyment of its facility because of
No. 1-22-1952
his race, national origin, status as a military veteran, and status as a citizen, in violation of
section 102A of the Illinois Human Rights Act. See 775 ILCS 5/102(A) (West 2020).
¶3 On November 7, 2021, petitioner e-mailed the Department in response to a questionnaire
and included his U.S. mail address, telephone number, and two email addresses (one a gmail
account and one associated with Northeastern University), stating that the Department could
contact him by telephone or by replying to the email itself.
¶4 On December 17, 2021, Department staff left a voicemail message for petitioner but
never received a return call. On January 4, 2022, Department staff telephoned petitioner but was
unable to reach him or leave a voicemail message. That same day, Department staff telephoned
the contact person whose information petitioner had provided in the event that petitioner could
not be reached; the call was not answered, and staff was unable to leave a voicemail. Also on that
same day, Department staff mailed a letter to petitioner requesting that he call Department staff
immediately. Petitioner never responded to the letter. The United States Postal Service did not
return the letter as undeliverable.
¶5 On February 15, 2022, the Department sent another letter to petitioner, as well as to his
contact person, notifying them that, if petitioner did not contact Department staff within 30 days,
his charge could be dismissed for failure to proceed. Neither petitioner nor his contact person
responded or contacted Department staff.
¶6 On April 12, 2022, the Department dismissed petitioner’s charge for failure to proceed
under sections 2520.430(c) and 2520.560(b) of the Department’s rules. See 56 Ill. Admin. Code
§ 2520.430(c) (“A complainant must cooperate with the Department, provide necessary
information and be available for interviews and conferences upon reasonable notice or request by
2
No. 1-22-1952
the Department.”); id. § 2520.560(b)(2) (Department may dismiss charge based on
“complainant’s failure to proceed, as provided in Section 2520.430(c).”).
¶7 Petitioner filed a Request for Review with the Illinois Human Rights Commission
(Commission). Aside from restating his reasons for bringing the charge, petitioner addressed the
basis for the dismissal in three substantive paragraphs:
“8. Any communication from hereon [after the initial November 7 correspondence],
whether by mail or electronic mail, is not received by [petitioner] via [email address]. My
secondary email [email address] is only temporaneously [sic] available because not a
registered student at the Northeastern Illinois University. I also have problems with the
United States Postal Service in which I have an ongoing Inspector General complaint that
has never been communicated or resolved and such that I sometimes do not receive mails
coming from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and other sources of my
personal and business mails.
9. [Petitioner] is not responding to the communication of the Department because is
not receiving the actual communication coming from the Department.
10. [Petitioner] did not fail to communicate or response [sic] to the Department but
was ignorant or not fully inform [sic] about the communication after November 7, 2021.”
¶8 The Commission sustained the Department’s dismissal. The Commission noted that,
when petitioner provided his initial contact information for U.S. mail address and telephone, he
never indicated any problems with them. The Commission also reasoned that, though petitioner
complained of his problems receiving U.S. mail, he “does not state that he had any issues
receiving phone calls, or that his contact person had any issues receiving phone calls or mail.
Further, he does not explain why he did not return the phone calls to himself or his contact
3
No. 1-22-1952
person.” Thus, the Commission ruled, petitioner “has not presented sufficient evidence to show
that the Respondent’s dismissal of the charge was not in accordance with the Act.”
¶9 This appeal followed.
¶ 10 On appeal, we review the Commission’s decision, not that of the Department. Spencer v.
Illinois Human Rights Comm’n, 2021 IL App (1st) 170026, ¶ 31. The Commission’s findings of
fact are reviewed for manifest error; we will not overturn those findings unless the opposite
conclusion is clearly evident. Id. The ultimate decision of the Commission is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. Id. ¶ 32. The Commission abuses its discretion when no reasonable person
would adopt the position of the Commission. Young v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, 2012
IL App (1st) 112204, ¶ 33.
¶ 11 Petitioner raises several issues but fails to provide anything beyond conclusory
statements without support in the record and without a single citation to case law. For example,
he writes that the Commission erred in failing to “properly investigate” his complaint, in
dismissing the action even though “no fact-finding conference has occurred during the
investigation,” and in failing “to compel all necessary records during the investigation.” These
statements miss the point of the dismissal—that petitioner’s failure to cooperate precluded the
Department from initiating even a cursory investigation, much less a full one.
¶ 12 Likewise, petitioner argues in conclusory fashion that his “request for review includes all
necessary and sufficient documents to properly review the material facts,” but again, it is obvious
that the Department would require, at a bare minimum, an interview with petitioner before
moving forward to a full hearing.
¶ 13 Finally, petitioner writes that he is “is cognizant and aware of the administrative
procedure of” the Department, as he has “previously filed an employment discrimination against
4
No. 1-22-1952
State of Illinois Department of Central Management Services and State of Illinois Department of
State Police.” It is unclear how that aids his position; if anything, it demonstrates why petitioner
should have already been aware of his requirement to cooperate with the Department.
¶ 14 The Commission found that petitioner failed to proceed with the investigation. We have
no grounds to say that the opposite conclusion is clearly evident. The Commission makes the
salient points that petitioner never indicated, in providing his initial information, that contact by
U.S. mail or telephone would be unreliable. And his excuse for not responding only pertained to
the U.S. mail at his address, not to telephone calls placed to his number, much less U.S. mail and
telephone calls to his backup contact.
¶ 15 With that finding, it was more than reasonable for the Commission to sustain the
dismissal of the charge. We have no basis for finding an abuse of discretion. We uphold the
Commission’s final decision sustaining the dismissal.
¶ 16 The final decision of the Commission is affirmed.
¶ 17 Affirmed.
5