Willis v. Dept. of Human Rights

13 Citing cases

  1. Wagner v. Ill. Human Rights Comm'n

    2020 Ill. App. 190247 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    However, mere speculation and conjecture do not constitute substantial evidence of discrimination. Willis v. Illinois Department of Human Rights, 307 Ill. App. 3d 317, 326 (1999). ¶ 26 If the Department determines that there is substantial evidence to support the charge, then it will notify the complainant that he has the right to file a civil action in the circuit court or to request that the Department file a complaint with the Commission. 775 ILCS 5/7A-102(D)(4) (West 2016). If, however, the Department determines that there is not substantial evidence to support the charge, then it must dismiss it. 775 ILCS 5/7A-102(D)(3) (West 2016). ¶ 27 If the charge is dismissed, the complainant may request that the Commission review whether the Department properly dismissed the charge for lack of substantial evidence.

  2. Gaylord v. Dep't of Human Rights

    2020 IL App (1st) 182577 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    Mere speculation and conjecture do not constitute substantial evidence of discrimination. Willis v. Illinois Department of Human Rights, 307 Ill. App. 3d 317, 326 (1999). If the Department determines that there is no substantial evidence, the charge will be dismissed.

  3. Dajun Zheng v. Dep't of Human Rights

    2019 IL App (1st) 181952 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    However, mere speculation and conjecture do not constitute substantial evidence of discrimination. Willis v. Illinois Department of Human Rights, 307 Ill. App. 3d 317, 326 (1999).¶ 19 In Zaderaka v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, 131 Ill. 2d 172, 178-79 (1989), the supreme court followed the approach set out by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) to analyze a claim of employment discrimination under the Act.

  4. Mitchell v. Dep't of Human Rights

    2019 Ill. App. 181928 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    Procedural rights that are essential to a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding do not apply to the Department's fact-finding or investigative proceedings. Willis v. Department of Human Rights, 307 Ill. App. 3d 317, 325 (1999). The Department may convene a fact-finding conference as part of its investigation for the purpose of identifying the disputed issues and obtaining evidence.

  5. Deen v. Lustig

    337 Ill. App. 3d 294 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)   Cited 22 times
    Denying police officer's motion to supplement the record on appeal with a medical report that was not introduced at the administrative hearing

    Our standard of review is "whether the finding of no substantial evidence was arbitrary or capricious or amounted to an abuse of discretion." Willis v. Department of Human Rights, 307 Ill. App.3d 317, 326-27, 718 N.E.2d 240, 247 (1999). "Agency action is arbitrary and capricious only if the agency contravenes the legislature's intent, fails to consider a crucial aspect of the problem, or offers an explanation which is so implausible that it runs contrary to agency expertise."

  6. Williams v. Ill. Human Rights Comm'n

    2022 Ill. App. 201299 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022)

    Mere speculation and conjecture do not constitute substantial evidence of discrimination. Willis v. Illinois Department of Human Rights, 307 Ill.App.3d 317, 326 (1999). If the Department determines there is no substantial evidence supporting the charge, it shall dismiss the charge.

  7. Spiegel v. The Ill. Human Rights Comm'n

    2021 Ill. App. 192303 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021)   1 Legal Analyses

    Speculation and conjecture do not meet this evidentiary standard. Willis v. Illinois Department of Human Rights, 307 Ill.App.3d 317, 326 (1999). Substantial evidence decisions are "essentially prosecutorial, i.e., whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the charge."

  8. Applegate v. Ill. Human Rights Comm'n

    2020 IL App (1st) 191419 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    However, mere speculation and conjecture do not constitute substantial evidence of discrimination. Willis v. Illinois Department of Human Rights, 307 Ill. App. 3d 317, 326 (1999). If substantial evidence is not found, the Department must dismiss the charge.

  9. Omene v. Ill. Human Rights Comm'n

    2020 IL App (1st) 191572 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)

    In so doing, the Commission's findings are given deference, and the reviewing court is prohibited from reweighing the evidence or substituting its judgment for that of the Commission. Willis v. Illinois Department of Human Rights, 307 Ill. App. 3d 317, 327 (1999). Where the Commission sustains the Department's dismissal of an alleged civil rights violation, we review that decision for an abuse of discretion.

  10. Gaylord v. Ill. Human Rights Comm'n

    2020 Ill. App. 182578 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    775 ILCS 5/7A-102(D)(2) (West 2014). Mere speculation and conjecture do not constitute substantial evidence of discrimination. Willis v. Illinois Department of Human Rights, 307 Ill. App. 3d 317, 326 (1999). If the Department determines that there is no substantial evidence, the charge will be dismissed.