FIRST DIVISION
                                                 November 21, 2005

JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the opinion of the court:

Denny's, Inc., (Denny's), seeks administrative review of a default order entered by theIllinois Human Rights Commission (Commission) against Denny's on Nathaniel Washington'scharge of race discrimination in a place of public accommodation. Denny's also contests aseparate order of the Commission awarding Washington $40,000 for emotional damages, $28,816for attorney fees, and $1,293 for costs. Denny's argues the default order should be reversedbecause Denny's demonstrated "good cause" for its failure to attend a fact-finding conferencescheduled by the Illinois Department of Human Rights (Department) after Washington filed thecharge, rather than " 'deliberate, contumacious, and unwarranted disregard' " for the investigatoryauthority of the Department as required under Chicago Transit Authority v. Department ofHuman Rights, 169 Ill. App. 3d 749, 754, 523 N.E.2d 1108, 1112-13 (1988), quoting GeorgeWilliams Hoffman & Co. v. Capital Services Co., 101 Ill App. 3d 487, 493-94, 428 N.E.2d 600(1981). Denny's also argues the damage award is not supported by the allegations inWashington's written charge or by the manifest weight of evidence adduced at a hearingconducted by an administrative law judge. Lastly, Denny's argues the amount of attorney feesawarded is unreasonable.

Washington filed a charge of discrimination with the Department alleging that because hewas "black," a partially-eaten chicken wing was concealed within his pot roast dinner when he ateat the Denny's Restaurant located in Melrose Park, Illinois, on December 21, 1998. He alsoalleged he and his wife were "the only black patrons in the restaurant" at the time. Further, withintwo days he suffered a flu-like illness of unspecified duration and also "suffered severe emotionaltrauma, depression, extreme fear, and anxiety" about the possibility of contracting acommunicable disease from the chicken. Washington did not specify why he attributed theincident to racial discrimination. He filed his original charge on or about March 26, 1999, and atechnical amendment on December 6, 1999, relabeling it as a charge of public accommodationdiscrimination.

The Department mailed a notice of the charge to Denny's on June 28, 1999. KimberlyAlexander, who worked in Denny's legal department in Spartanburg, South Carolina, mailedDenny's response to the Department on July 19, 1999. The Department then notified the partiesby telephone on September 9, 1999, and by mail on September 10, 1999, that it had scheduled afact finding conference for November 16, 1999, in the Department's Chicago offices, specifically,"9:00 a.m. at the Department of Human Rights, 100 W. Randolph St., 10th floor, Chicago, IL 60601." The written noticed indicated a fact-finding conference is "an investigative forumintended to define the issues, determine which facts are undisputed, obtain evidence and ascertainwhether there is a basis for a negotiated settlement of the charge." The written notice to Denny'swas mailed to Alexander in Denny's legal department in Spartanburg, South Carolina, and soughtthe attendance of food server Cindy Villanueva, "service coord." Mary E. Kahn, and cook,Antonio [Rodriguez].

Denny's subsequently retained a Chicago attorney. On November 4, 1999, the attorney,Robert E. Kinchen, filed an appearance. On November 10, 1999, Kinchen responded to a requestfrom the Department for additional information by submitting (a) a copy of the Washingtons' mealticket for December 21, 1998, (b) a copy of handwritten note regarding a telephone call fromAlice Washington to the Melrose Park Denny's, (c) a list of employees at the Melrose ParkDenny's, (d) a copy of Denny's policy for addressing customers' complaints, and (e)documentation of complaints lodged between December 1996 and June 1999. It is unclear fromthe record when the Department requested these documents. Kinchen sent the documents bymessenger to Department investigator Don Nosbaum, and in addition to this writtencommunication, he had several telephone conversations with Nosbaum regarding theinvestigation.

On the day of the fact-finding conference, attorney Kinchen telephoned the Department atapproximately 8:50 a.m. and was told that the conference was about to begin. Kinchen statedDenny's had not been notified of the fact-finding conference and would not attend, and he askedfor a continuance. The Department indicated Denny's should respond to a request to show causethat the Department would issue and that Denny's response would receive due consideration. Kinchen, nevertheless, went to the conference, arriving 15 minutes after it began. He reiteratedthat Denny's had not received notice and again asked for a continuance. The Departmentindicated that an attorney's attendance at a fact-finding conference is not a substitute for arespondent's attendance (see 56 Ill. Adm. Code