Sangamon County Sheriff's Department v. State of Illinois Human Rights Commission

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 4th District Appellate » 2007 » Sangamon County Sheriff's Department v. State of Illinois Human Rights Commission

State: Illinois

Court: 4th District Appellate

Docket No: 4-06-0445 Rel

Case Date: 08/22/2007

Preview:NO. 4-06-0445 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

Filed 8/22/07

) Direct Administrative THE SANGAMON COUNTY SHERIFF'S ) Review of the DEPARTMENT, ) Illinois Human Rights Petitioner-Appellant, ) Commission v. ) No. 1999SF0713 THE STATE OF ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS ) COMMISSION; DONNA FELECCIA, and RON ) YANOR, ) Respondents-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the opinion of the court: Petitioner, the Sangamon County Sheriff's Department (Sheriff's Department), appeals an order of the Illinois Human Rights Commission (Commission), finding the Sheriff's Department strictly liable for respondent Ron Yanor's sexual harassment of respondent Donna Feleccia. We reverse. I. BACKGROUND On June 15, 1999, respondent Donna Feleccia filed a charge of discrimination with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (Department of Human Rights) alleging she had been sexually harassed. On August 19, 1999, Feleccia filed an amended

charge alleging (1) sexual harassment on or about February 1, 1999, with a retaliatory motivation; (2) sexual harassment on or about February 1, 1999, that "created a hostile, embarrassing, and intimidating work environment"; and (3) "[d]ifferent terms

and conditions continuing to August 18, 1999, because of retaliation," which occurred at such a time to raise the inference of retaliatory motivation. Feleccia named petitioner

Sheriff's Department and respondent Ron Yanor as respondents in the amended charge of discrimination. On July 18, 2000, the Commission filed a four-count complaint against the Sheriff's Department and Yanor. Count I

alleged that the Sheriff's Department was an "employer" within the meaning of section 2-101(B)(1)(b) of the Illinois Human Rights Act (Act) (775 ILCS 5/2-101(B)(1)(b) (West 2000)) and Yanor was an "employee" within the meaning of section 2-101(A) of the Act (775 ILCS 5/2-101(A) (West 2000)). Count I further

alleged Feleccia was "aggrieved by practices of retaliation and sexual harassment discrimination prohibited by [s]ections 6101(A) and 2-102(D) of the Act." Specifically, count I alleged

that (1) in December 1998, Feleccia opposed sexual harassment by declining Yanor's request to have sex with him; (2) that on February 1, 1999, Yanor wrote a ficticious letter addressed to Feleccia that stated she may have been exposed to a communicable or sexually transmitted disease; and (3) the Sheriff's Department harassed Feleccia in retaliation for opposing sexual harassment, in violation of section 6-101(A) of the Act. Count II adopted

the same allegations as count I but was directed at Yanor. Counts III and IV realleged the allegations in count I - 2 -

and alleged Yanor sexually harassed Feleccia by engaging in the following acts: (1) kissing her on November 19, 1998; (2) delivering a coffee cup with candy in it to Feleccia's home in December 1998; (3) asking her if she wanted to have sex with him in December 1998; and (4) sending Feleccia a ficticious letter that stated she may have been exposed to a communicable or sexually transmitted disease. Moreover, counts III and IV

alleged the conduct created a hostile, intimidating, and offensive work environment. Those counts further alleged the

Sheriff's Department and Yanor sexually harassed Feleccia in violation of section 2-102(D) of the Act and that the Sheriff's Department was strictly liable for Yanor's actions because Yanor was a member of management. On November 13, 2000, the Sheriff's Department filed its verified answer. The Sheriff's Department denied it sexually

harassed plaintiff and also denied strict liability should be imposed. Additionally, the Sheriff's Department set forth the

following two affirmative defenses: (1) Feleccia failed to use the complaint procedure, i.e., the Sheriff's Department had a policy against sexual harassment in place at all relevant times and Feleccia did not initially report any of the first three incidents alleged in counts III and IV all of which occurred outside the workplace or were without witness, and (2) the Sheriff's Department took prompt remedial action, i.e., the - 3 -

Sheriff's Department launched an extensive investigation and took prompt remedial action against Yanor after learning he authored the ficticious letter. Feleccia and Yanor settled; however the case against the Sheriff's Department continued. The record reveals the following. Feleccia, now known

as Donna Scroggin, has worked at the Sheriff's Department since 1992. Feleccia is a clerk in the records department, and in 1998

and 1999, her job was to enter data on warrants and orders of protection into the computer system. Lieutenant Sandra Hinsey,

the highest ranking individual in the records department, was Feleccia's supervisor. Feleccia met Yanor in 1992. Feleccia testified at the

hearing before the administrative law judge (ALJ) that Yanor first sexually harassed her in November 1998 when he called her to go to Chantilly Lace, a local bar, after the annual "cigar dinner" the sheriff holds each year. Yanor allegedly stated a Feleccia agreed to

group of people were going to Chantilly Lace.

go because "we were friends" and she mistakenly thought Yanor's wife would be with him. Yanor picked her up and when they got to Only one other

the bar no one else Feleccia knew was there.

person Feleccia knew showed up, and Feleccia became uncomfortable and asked Yanor to take her home. Yanor agreed to take her home.

When Feleccia tried to get out of the car, Yanor grabbed her arm - 4 -

and asked for a kiss.

Feleccia responded "no, you're married." Feleccia told

Yanor asked again and would not let go of her arm. Yanor "we're just friends."

Again, Yanor would not let go of her

arm, so she gave him a kiss and she then went up to her house. Feleccia stated the next time Yanor harassed her was in December 1998, when Yanor showed up to her house with a Christmas cup with candies in it. in. Feleccia's children answered the door and let him

Yanor was on duty at the time. The next incident occurred at Feleccia's friend

MerriEllen King's December 1998 office Christmas party held at Chantilly Lace. to him. Yanor was at the bar and Feleccia just said "hi"

Both Feleccia and King testified that Yanor glared at Eventually Yanor asked Feleccia if

Feleccia while they danced.

she wanted to dance with him, to which she responded "no." According to King, she and Feleccia left because Feleccia felt uncomfortable. Later, Feleccia told King that Yanor had been

stopping by her desk at work and asking her to go out with him. According to Feleccia, the next incident, also in December 1998, occurred when Yanor stopped by her desk when she was by herself and asked if she "would like to go to a motel with him for the night." Feleccia said "no" and told him "[w]e will always just I've always told you just

be friends" and "you're married. friends."

On February 5, 1999, Feleccia received a envelope on - 5 -

her desk.

The envelope contained a letter, dated January 29,

1999, which stated the following: "This is to inform you that you may have recently been exposed to a communicable or sexually transmitted disease. A confidential

source who has tested positive has brought this matter to our attention. To insure your privacy, your file has been assigned a control number of #A23759. Please refer to this in future correspondence. It is important that you schedule a screening within the next 7 days. Please

contact your local public health office for an appointment. no cost to you." The letter appeared to be on Illinois Department of Public Health letterhead. Feleccia "read it, and *** started shaking. And [she] This service is provided at

didn't want anybody to see [her] cry, so [she] went to *** Lieutenant [Hinsey]" and handed her the letter. Hinsey was Feleccia's supervisor. As stated,

She was also one of two

individuals in the office whom employees were to go to for complaints of sexual harassment. - 6 -

Hinsey and Feleccia left the office and took the letter to the Department of Public Health, where they learned the letter did not come from there. On their way back to their office,

Hinsey asked Feleccia if it could have been Deputy Dale Newsome or Yanor who wrote the letter. either of them. Feleccia did not think it was

Feleccia mentioned no previous history with Upon returning to

Yanor other than joking around at the office.

the office, they showed the letter to Chief Tony Sacco, who said there would be an investigation. Hinsey told Feleccia to act

normal and not say anything about the matter until the investigation was completed. Following an investigation by

internal affairs, it was determined that Yanor was the author of the letter. Yanor later admitted writing the letter but claimed Sergeant Stephen Meyer, who conducted

it was a practical joke.

the investigation for the Sheriff's Department, informed Sheriff Neil Williamson of his conclusion that the complaint of sexual harassment had been substantiated. Nobody discussed the letter

with Feleccia between February 5, 1999, the day she received the letter, and May 25, 1999, the day she was informed the author of the letter had been identified. After learning the identity of the author of the letter had been discovered, Feleccia went to Sergeant Meyer to find out who it was. He informed her that it was Yanor. When asked by

Feleccia what kind of discipline Yanor received, Meyer told - 7 -

Feleccia she would have to go to Sheriff Williamson.

Feleccia

went to Sheriff Williamson, who informed her that "he gave him as many days as he could without the merit board finding out." On

May 18, 1999, Sheriff Williamson had informed Yanor that he was suspended for four days without pay to be served consecutively by June 11, 1999. Public Health. Williamson had also talked to the Department of Feleccia perceived that Sheriff Williamson talked

to the Department of Public Health so that it would not press charges. However, the Department of Public Health did refer the

matter to the Sangamon County State's Attorney's office for possible prosecution, but no prosecution ever occurred. According to Feleccia, Williamson also told her not to go to the media, bring sexual-harassment charges, or to go anywhere near Yanor or talk to him. After the meeting with Williamson,

Lieutenant Hinsey and Feleccia went back to the office, where Feleccia informed Hinsey she was not happy with the discipline Yanor received. severely. She felt he should have been punished more

Feleccia "felt insignificant and not important" She and Hinsey went to talk to

because nothing more was done.

Sacco to see if anything else could be done, but Sacco said they could not discipline Yanor twice. Feleccia stated Deputy Newsome had called her and told her that he heard her affair with Yanor went wrong. was wrong but she could not discuss this. - 8 She said he

This supposedly

occurred within 24 hours of receiving the purported Department of Public Health letter that was actually from Yanor. Feleccia

stated that on that same day, her coworker Janet Edwards heard Deputy McNamara say he heard Feleccia got a disease and he wanted to know what it was. Feleccia remarried and her new husband's ex-wife worked for the city. The ex-wife went to Feleccia's husband's home one

day and told him and his daughter that Feleccia had acquired AIDS from a deputy at her job. Feleccia went to the Sheriff and he This

said there was nothing he could do about the rumors. occurred in the summer of 2000.

According to a June 15, 1999, memo from Mike Walton, the director of support services at the Sheriff's Department, Chief Sacco met with Feleccia and Walton on June 10, 1999. At

that meeting, Feleccia advised them she was not happy with the discipline imposed on Yanor and that she believed more should have been done to punish Yanor as the incident was being talked about by people throughout the Sheriff's Department. Sacco

advised Feleccia that nothing more could be done as far as the Sheriff's Department punishing Yanor went, and the incident had been reported to the Sangamon County State's Attorney by the Illinois Department of Public Health. Feleccia informed Sacco

that this had been going on with Yanor since 1998 and there have been several incidents. Sacco stated she should have come - 9 -

forward at the time of the incidents and made the Sheriff's Department aware of them so actions could have been taken to stop the behavior. Sacco asked Feleccia to document all the previous According to Sacco's

incidents in writing and send them to him.

testimony before the ALJ, Feleccia never documented these incidents in writing to him. The evidence showed that in 1998 and 1999, Yanor was one of two sergeants on the second shift. His duties were to

assist the lieutenant when he was there in the overall operation of the second shift in relation to making service calls and things of that nature. Yanor or the other sergeant was in charge

of the shift when the lieutenant was not on duty, at which times they were in charge of 10 deputies. Only Lieutenant Hinsey made

decisions regarding Feleccia's duties or had control over her working conditions. Yanor did not have any supervisory

responsibilities over Feleccia, nor did he have the ability to impact her working conditions. Moreover, Yanor did not have any

role in Lieutenant Hinsey's appraisal reports on Feleccia's job performance. Feleccia continued to work in her job throughout all of the alleged incidents. Her working conditions did not change.

Lieutenant Hinsey did not notice any changes in Feleccia's work habits or performance, nor did she receive any complaints from Feleccia about having difficulty with her work. - 10 -

According to Feleccia, she had been seeing a psychiatrist since 1996. stress." She took Paxil "for anxiety, for work

After receiving Yanor's letter, Feleccia increased the

frequency of her visits to the psychiatrist and the dosage of her medication was doubled. Her psychiatrist instructed her to begin

seeing another psychiatrist because he worked for the county. The new psychiatrist changed her medication because she "couldn't control the anxiety and paranoia at work" and also put her on sleeping medication. Feleccia was relieved when she found out She lost Feleccia

the letter was not true but stated "it was horrible." sleep and missed days of work because of the incident.

admitted she had a panic attack at work prior to receiving the letter from Yanor and that was when she first sought treatment by a psychiatrist. Following a hearing, the ALJ issued a decision recommending that both the sexual harassment and retaliation claims be dismissed with prejudice. The ALJ concluded Feleccia

"failed to establish a prima facie case of sexual harassment in that [she] failed to show the conduct at issue had the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with [her] work performance or created an intimidating, hostile[,] or offensive working environment." The ALJ also concluded Feleccia "failed to

establish a prima facie case of retaliation in that the record did not establish either an actual 'protest' of sexual harassment - 11 -

or a causal link between any alleged complaint of harassment and any adverse act." As part of his decision, the ALJ found Yanor He "had no role in

never held supervisory duties over Feleccia.

giving [Feleccia] orders as to how she should perform her work in hiring, firing, demoting[,] or disciplining any of the civilian employees in the records department." The ALJ also found the

November and December 1998 incidents were outside the 180-day period for reporting incidents of sexual harassment. On November 3, 2003, Feleccia filed exceptions to the ALJ's recommended order and decision. The Commission filed its

initial decision on August 31, 2004, and a modified order and decision on November 22, 2004. The Commission disagreed with the

ALJ's finding that the November and December 1998 incidents were barred and thus not able to be viewed as part of Feleccia's proof and reversed the ALJ's recommendation to dismiss the sexualharassment charge. As to the specific incidents, the Commission The November 1998 incident where Yanor

concluded the following.

grabbed Feleccia's arm and did not let her exit the vehicle was "a sexual request by a supervisor tied with a physical threat of force; an action clearly sufficient to establish sexual harassment." Moreover, "Yanor's December 1998 request to spend

the night in a motel with [Feleccia] clearly implies a request to have sexual intercourse. These acts, namely, the forcible

request for a sexual favor and the motel request, constitute - 12 -

sexual harassment."

The Commission further stated "[w]e find

that Yanor's conduct, specifically his unwelcome sexual advances and forged Department of Public Health letter, had the effect of substantially interfering with [Feleccia's] work performance and created an intimidating, hostile[,] and offensive working environment." The Commission sustained the recommendation that

the retaliation charge be dismissed, finding that Feleccia did not present "evidence of adverse employment actions in retaliation for opposing sexual harassment." The Commission

noted Sheriff Williamson told Feleccia not to go to the media and not to press sexual-harassment charges or go near Yanor. The

Commission also noted Chief Sacco told Feleccia the punishment was complete and Yanor could not be punished twice after Feleccia replied she thought the punishment was too light. The Commission

found the Sheriff's Department's "conduct reprehensible, where they not only failed to take reasonable corrective action, but also where [it] told [Feleccia] not to press charges or go near Yanor." Finally, the Commission also remanded the matter for a

determination of damages, attorney fees, and costs. Upon remand, the ALJ recommended an award of $10,000 damages from which $3,500 would be deducted because of Feleccia's settlement with Yanor and $11,137.50 in attorney fees, $1,593.75 in paralegal fees, and costs of $685.03. On January 3, 2006, the

Commission adopted this recommendation and entered a final order - 13 -

in which it concluded Feleccia timely filed her charge, she established "that Yanor committed a variety of sexually harassing acts that cumulatively constitute[d] a hostile work environment," and the Sheriff's Department was strictly liable for Yanor's conduct because he was a supervisor even though he was not Feleccia's supervisor and he did not have the authority to affect the terms or conditions of Feleccia's work. The order listed the

Department of Human Rights as an additional party of record and a copy of the order was delivered to the Department of Human Right's chief legal counsel. The Sheriff's Department filed an application for rehearing. The Commission denied the application, again listing

the Department of Human Rights as an additional party of record. Thereafter, the Sheriff's Department timely filed its petition for review with this court. The petition named the Commission,

Feleccia, and Yanor as respondents to the action but did not name the Department of Human Rights. II. ANALYSIS The Sheriff's Department argues that the Commission erred by (1) imposing strict liability on the Sheriff's Department for Yanor's conduct, (2) considering unreported acts by Yanor that occurred outside the 180-day jurisdictional period, and (3) finding Feleccia established actionable sexual harassment. The Commission responds that (1) this action should - 14 -

be dismissed because the Sheriff's Department failed to name the Department of Human Rights as a respondent in its petition for review; (2) the Commission correctly concluded that Feleccia established sexual harassment in violation of the Act; and (3) the Sheriff's Department is strictly liable for Yanor's sexual harassment of Feleccia. A. Should This Action Be Dismissed for Failure To Name the Commission on the Petition for Review? The Commission correctly notes that petitioners must strictly comply with statutory requirements for seeking review of administrative decisions or their appeals may be dismissed. Our

supreme court has held that administrative-review actions involve the exercise of "special statutory jurisdiction." ESG Watts,

Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 191 Ill. 2d 26, 30, 727 N.E.2d 1022, 1025 (2000). "When a court is exercising special statutory

jurisdiction the language of the act conferring jurisdiction delimits the court's power to hear the case. A party seeking to

invoke special statutory jurisdiction thus 'must strictly adhere to the prescribed procedures' in the statute." ESG Watts, Inc.,

191 Ill. 2d at 30, 727 N.E.2d at 1025, quoting McGaughy v Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 165 Ill.2d 1, 12, 649 N.E.2d 404, 410 (1995). Supreme Court Rule 335 sets forth the procedures for a statutory direct review of an order by an administrative agency. 155 Ill. 2d R. 335. Rule 335(a) states "[t]he petition for - 15 -

review shall be filed in the Appellate Court and shall specify the parties seeking review and shall designate the respondent and the order or part thereof to be reviewed. The agency and all 155 Ill. 2d

other parties of record shall be named respondents." R. 335(a).

The Commission argues the Sheriff's Department did

not comply with Rule 335 because it did not designate the Department of Human Rights as a respondent in the petition for review. The Sheriff's Department responds that the Department of We agree

Human Rights is not a party of record in this case. with the Sheriff's Department.

The Commission relies on a number of statutes and administrative rules, along with our supreme court's decision in McGaughy, 165 Ill. 2d 1, 649 N.E.2d 404, as support that this appeal must be dismissed for the Sheriff Department's failure to name the Department of Human Rights on the petition for review. See 775 ILCS 5/8-105(A)(3) (West 2004) (approval of a settlement shall be accomplished by an order, served on the parties and the Department); 56 Ill. Adm. Code

Download Sangamon County Sheriff's Department v. State of Illinois Human Rights Commissio