Jankovic v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n , 2020 IL App (1st) 190052-U ( 2020 )

2020 IL App (1st) 190052-UNo. 1-19-0052
Order filed February 14, 2020
Fifth Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as
precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
FIRST DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________
ANICA JANKOVIC, ) Petition for Direct
) Administrative Review of a
Complainant, ) Decision of the Illinois Human
) Rights Commission.
)
v. )
)
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS )
COMMISSION, )
)
Respondent )
)
(Susan Pod, Non-Party Petitioner). ) Charge No. 2014 CH 3052
JUSTICE DELORT delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Hoffman and Justice Rochford concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: We dismiss this petition for review because the appellant (1) lacked standing and
was not authorized to represent the legal interests of another; (2) was not authorized
to represent the interests of her deceased mother; and (3) did not name necessary
parties in her petition for review as required by the Administrative Review Law.
No. 1-19-0052
¶2 Appellant Susan Pod, a non-attorney proceeding pro se, appeals from a final order entered
by the Illinois Human Rights Commission (Commission) sustaining the Department of Human
Rights’ (Department) dismissal of a charge of discrimination brought by Pod’s mother, Anica
Jankovic, against Jankovic’s landlord, Pebbleshire II Associates (Pebbleshire), and the building
manager, Lisa Stewart (collectively, landlord). For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal.
¶3 On May 21, 2014, Pod filed a housing discrimination complaint with the Department “on
behalf” of Jankovic, who, according to the complaint, had mental disabilities and limited
proficiency in English. The complaint claimed the landlord violated federal housing law and the
Illinois Human Rights Act (Act) (775 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2014)) by failing to reasonably
accommodate Jankovic’s mental disabilities. Specifically, the complaint alleged the landlord
considered the income of Jankovic’s live-in caregiver, Allen Toskic (her grandson and Pod’s son),
in determining Jankovic’s monthly rent subsidy. The complaint also alleged Jankovic and Toskic
were treated differently than other tenants due to Toskic’s association with a disabled individual.
¶4 The landlord responded to the complaint on June 19, 2014. In relevant part, the landlord
stated that it informed Jankovic that Toskic could be approved as a live-in aide, but his income
would still be counted because he was a family member.
¶5 The Department’s investigator determined the complaint pertained to rent calculation and
not whether Jankovic or Toskic had the right to reside in the unit. Moreover, while Jankovic was
disabled and required 24-hour care, there was insufficient evidence that the landlord prevented
Toskic from residing in Jankovic’s unit. Therefore, according to the investigator, the landlord did
-2-
No. 1-19-0052
not violate the Act. On August 20, 2014, the Department adopted the investigator’s
recommendation and dismissed the charge. 1
¶6 On November 24, 2014, Jankovic filed a request for review with the Commission. The
request bears Jankovic’s signature and the caption identifies her as the sole complainant, but directs
that correspondence be sent to Pod at an address in Florida. On December 7, 2018, the Commission
issued an order sustaining the Department’s dismissal for lack of substantial evidence. The
Commission’s order concludes: “This is a final Order. A final Order may be appealed to the Illinois
Appellate Court by filing a Petition for Review, naming the Illinois Human Rights Commission,
the Illinois Department of Human Rights, and Lisa Stewart and Pebbleshire II Associates as
respondents”.
¶7 On January 10, 2019, Pod filed a petition for direct administrative review that identifies
the “petitioner” as “Susan Pod/Anica Jankovic.” A field labeled “Attorney for Petitioner Address”
lists Pod’s name and address, along with the words “No Attorney”. The petition does not name
Pebbleshire or Stewart as respondents.
¶8 On appeal, Pod alleges that the Commission abused its discretion when it sustained the
Department’s dismissal of the discrimination charges against the landlord. The Commission
initially argues that Pod lacks standing to bring the appeal, and that she may not represent Jankovic
in this proceeding because she is not a lawyer.
¶9 The Act provides for a direct appeal of a final order of the Commission to this court. 775
ILCS 5/8-111(B) (West 2018). Our review is governed by the Administrative Review Law. 735
ILCS 5/3-102 (West 2018). The Administrative Review Law is a departure from the common law
1
The Department’s order is not included in the record on appeal.
-3-
No. 1-19-0052
and “the procedures established therein must be followed.” Rodriguez v. Sheriff’s Merit Comm’n
of Kane County, 218 Ill. 2d 342, 349 (2006). In Illinois, standing to seek administrative review “is
limited to parties of record before the administrative agencies and then only when their rights,
duties or privileges are adversely affected by the decision.” Board of Education of Roxana
Community School District No. 1 v. Pollution Control Board, 2013 IL 115473, ¶ 20.
¶ 10 “The doctrine of standing is designed to preclude persons who have no interest in a
controversy from bringing suit. The doctrine assures that issues are raised only by those parties
with a real interest in the outcome of the controversy.” Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211,
221 (1999). “Under Illinois law, lack of standing is an affirmative defense, which is the defendant’s
burden to plead and prove.” Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital, 237 Ill. 2d 217, 252 (2010).
“Where a plaintiff has no standing, the proceedings must be dismissed. That is so because the lack
of standing negates the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Wexler v. Wirtz Corp., 211 Ill. 2d 18, 22 (2004).
¶ 11 Here, Pod purports to appeal from an order of the Commission in a proceeding where the
sole complainant was Jankovic. Pod was not a party of record to the proceedings below, and never
alleged she was living in the landlord’s apartment complex, paying rent, or seeking
accommodation for a disability. Consequently, Pod’s rights, duties, or privileges were not affected
by the Commission’s decision, and under the Administrative Review Law, she lacks standing to
seek administrative review in this court.
¶ 12 To the extent that Pod, a non-attorney, purports to have filed this appeal on behalf of
Jankovic, we note that “[a]n individual not duly authorized to practice law cannot represent another
in a court of law.” In re Estate of Mattson, 2019 IL App (1st) 180805, ¶ 6; see also 705 ILCS 205/1
(West 2018) (“No person shall be permitted to practice as an attorney or counselor at law within
-4-
No. 1-19-0052
this State without having previously obtained a license for that purpose from the Supreme Court
of this State.”). Although “a pro se litigant is allowed to represent his own personal interests, a
non-attorney cannot represent another’s legal interest on behalf of that individual.” Mattson, 2019
IL App (1st) 180805, ¶ 6. Pod contends that the Commission allowed her to litigate on her mother’s
behalf without objection. It is doubtful that the Commission should have permitted her to do so.
See Id. Regardless of whether Pod could have represented her mother at the commission level, she
cannot do so in this court. Id. Additionally, in her reply brief, Pod advises that Jankovic has died.
Only a duly appointed representative or executor of Jankovic’s estate can now represent Jankovic’s
interests. Mareskas-Palcek v. Schwartz, Wolf & Bernstein, LLP, 2017 IL App (1st) 162746, ¶ 32,
and even that representative must be represented by a licensed attorney. Mattson, ¶ 7.
¶ 13 Pod also failed to name necessary parties to her petition for review. Pebbleshire and Stewart
were parties to the proceedings before the Commission, so the petition for review was required to
list them as respondents. 735 ILCS 5/3-113(b) (West 2018); ESG Watts, Inc. v. Pollution Control
Bd., 191 Ill. 2d 26, 35 (2000). In fact, the Commission’s order specifically admonished Pod that
she was required to name Pebbleshire and Stewart as parties to the petition filed in this court. Pod
did not do so.
¶ 14 For all these reasons, we must dismiss the petition for review.
¶ 15 Dismissed.
-5-