Barnes v. Barbosa

3 Citing cases

  1. Lemon v. Tucker

    695 F. Supp. 963 (N.D. Ill. 1988)   Cited 9 times
    Holding right to use adjudicatory procedures under state act was protected property interest

    Instead, the defendant points to the Department's policy guide which states that a substantial evidence finding should be made in cases where "the determination boils down to an assessment of the witnesses' credibility. . . . unless the witness statements supporting one view are inherently implausible, this is a determination that should be made only at a hearing, after full examination and cross-examination of the witnesses under oath." Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Liability at p. 40, quoting Tucker Dep., 9/24/86, Tr. 284; Tucker Dep. Ex. No. 7. Defendant urges that any failure to follow this policy can be reviewed on appeal. See Barnes v. Barbosa, 144 Ill.App.3d 860, 865, 98 Ill.Dec. 497, 494 N.E.2d 619 (1st Dist. 1986) (substantial evidence established "by plaintiff's showing the [respondent] apparently chose to arbitrarily accept the written diagnoses of one psychiatrist over that of another, without further investigation.") There is no disagreement between the parties that cases which turn on issues of credibility should be resolved after a full evidentiary hearing.

  2. Community Mental Health Council, Inc. v. Department of Revenue

    541 N.E.2d 1330 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 5 times

    Finally, we note that a failure to name a necessary party is not a jurisdictional defect so that the issue will be deemed waived on appeal if not raised in the trial court. ( Barnes v. Barbosa (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 860, 494 N.E.2d 619.) The Department clearly did not raise this issue in the trial court and it therefore cannot be raised on appeal under the circumstances here.

  3. Lipsey v. Human Rights Com

    157 Ill. App. 3d 1054 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 10 times

    ( Clark Oil Refining Corp. v. Golden (1983), 114 Ill. App.3d 300, 307, 448 N.E.2d 958.) In reviewing the Commission's decision, we must determine whether it was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. ( Barnes v. Barbosa (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 860, 864, 494 N.E.2d 619.) Under the Human Rights Act (Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 68, par. 1-101 et seq.) the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. Once the plaintiff has satisfied that burden of proof, the employer may rebut it by presenting a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision. If the employer carries this burden, the presumption of unlawful discrimination is abrogated and plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the reason offered by the employer was a pretext.