Raintree Health Care Center v. Human Rights Comm'n
State: Illinois
Docket No: 80075
NOTICE: Under Supreme Court Rule 367 a party has 21 days after the
filing of the opinion to request a rehearing. Also, opinions are
subject to modification, correction or withdrawal at anytime prior
to issuance of the mandate by the Clerk of the Court. Therefore,
because the following slip opinion is being made available prior to
the Court's final action in this matter, it cannot be considered
the final decision of the Court. The official copy of the following
opinion will be published by the Supreme Court's Reporter of
Decisions in the Official Reports advance sheets following final
action by the Court.
Docket No. 80075--Agenda 20--May 1996.
RAINTREE HEALTH CARE CENTER, Appellant, v. THE ILLINOIS HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION et al., Appellees.
Opinion filed October 18, 1996.
JUSTICE HARRISON delivered the judgment of the court:
James Davis, the original complainant in this case, filed a
discrimination charge with the Illinois Department of Human Rights
alleging that his employer, Raintree Health Care Center (Raintree),
violated the Illinois Human Rights Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch.
68, par. 1--101 et seq.) by discharging him after learning that he
tested positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). After
a three-day hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) concluded
that Raintree had discriminated against Davis by constructively
discharging him on the basis of a physical handicap, his infection
with HIV. The ALJ recommended Davis' reinstatement to his former
position, or a substantially equivalent position with pay and
benefits, and awarded him back pay, plus interest, and reasonable
attorney fees. The Illinois Human Rights Commission upheld the
ALJ's recommended order and decision. Ill. Hum. Rts. Comm'n Rep.
1988CN2190 (April 15, 1994). The appellate court, with one justice
dissenting, affirmed the final order of the Illinois Human Rights
Commission. 275 Ill. App. 3d 387. We allowed Raintree's petition
for leave to appeal. 155 Ill. 2d R. 315.
The central issue raised in this appeal is whether the
Illinois Human Rights Commission properly determined that
Raintree's constructive discharge of Davis, based on his HIV-
positive status, amounted to a violation of the Illinois Human
Rights Act. To resolve this issue we must also determine whether
public health statutes and regulations in effect at the time of
this action prohibited Davis from working at the Raintree nursing
home and whether Raintree's belief that these regulations did in
fact bar Davis from working at its facility is relevant in
determining liability under the Illinois Human Rights Act. The
final issue raised by Raintree is whether it was entitled to
discovery and a hearing on Davis' petition for attorney fees. For
the reasons which follow, we affirm the judgment of the appellate
court.
The testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing before the
ALJ established the following facts. Raintree operates a nursing
home facility in Evanston, Illinois. Raintree hired James Davis as
a kitchen helper in March of 1987. Raintree later promoted Davis to
the position of cook at the facility. In June of 1987, Davis was
fired for fighting on the job, but Raintree rehired Davis in
November of 1987, when his supervisor asked him to return. Both
parties stipulated that after Davis was rehired, he performed his
duties as a cook in an acceptable manner consistent with Raintree's
standards. Davis' responsibilities as a cook consisted of preparing
the evening meal, placing the food on trays, and cleaning and
straightening the kitchen and storeroom areas. In performing these
duties, Raintree required Davis to wear gloves. Davis had no direct
contact with the residents of the facility.
On January 12, 1988, Davis' doctor informed him that he had
tested positive for HIV. After reporting to work that same day,
Davis told his supervisor, Pearl Smith, that he had just been
diagnosed as being HIV-positive. Smith suggested that Davis begin
working while she went to discuss the matter with Burton Behr, the
administrator of the facility. Behr then called Davis into his
office for a meeting. At this first meeting, Behr told Davis that
Raintree needed information from public health officials to
determine whether Davis could continue his employment. Behr then
allowed Davis to return to work. Behr testified that after this
first meeting, he began looking through the Illinois Department of
Public Health regulations and the City of Evanston regulations
governing the licensing of nursing homes. Behr found nothing in the
nursing home regulations that addressed the situation of an HIV-
positive employee.
Behr testified that on this day, he made several telephone
calls to the Evanston board of health, the Illinois Department of
Public Health, and the Illinois Council on Long Term Care for
advice on how to handle Davis' situation. Behr was unable to
receive a definitive answer as to whether Davis' condition made him
ineligible to work in a nursing home. Behr testified that when he
spoke with Louise Brown, the director of the Evanston board of
health, he explained to her that he "could not find anything in the
rules and regulations anywhere that specifies HIV-positive," and
asked whether Davis could continue working at the facility. Behr
testified that Brown responded, "I can't tell you he can't work
there, but I can tell you if something should occur because he is
working there, then you are subject to the rules and regulations."
Behr replied that "there are no rules and regulations governing
this." Brown again responded, "You will have to go with the rules
and regulations that stand until it can be clarified, so according
to the rules and regulations, he is unable to work there at the
present time ***." Behr also spoke with Rose Ferrell, a regional
supervisor of the Illinois Department of Public Health. Behr
testified that Ferrell simply told him to follow the rules and
regulations and that she would check further and get back to him.
Similarly, Terry Sullivan, the director of the Illinois Council on
Long Term Care, offered no recommendation on how Behr should
proceed.
After conducting this inquiry, Behr called Davis back to his
office. Behr told Davis that he thought it was best that Davis go
home until he found out more information as to whether the nursing
home regulations prohibited HIV-positive persons from working at
Raintree. Behr advised Davis that when he found out more
information he would telephone him. Behr also requested that Davis
bring a note from his doctor stating that "he was free of a
communicable disease or that he was allowed to work with the HIV
virus." That same week, Davis obtained a doctor's note as Behr
requested. The note, signed by Davis' doctor stated:
"To Whom It May Concern:
Mr. James Davis HIV status does not restrict him
from performing his current job as a cook in a nursing
home. The HIV (AIDS Virus) is NOT transmitted through the
preparation or serving of food and beverages.
Transmission is through blood and body fluids. Should Mr.
Davis cut himself in the course of the food preparation,
that food should be discarded the same as if any employee
had bled into food. Should you have any further
questions, please contact the nurse with the clinic,
Kathy Pietschmann, R.N., M.S. at 943-6600 ext. 401.
Sincerely,
(Signed) TOM SKOUTELIS
Tom Skoutelis, M.D."
Despite the note, Behr did not allow Davis to return to work
at Raintree. Behr testified that the Evanston board of health
informed him that the note was insufficient to permit Davis to
return to work because it did not specify that Davis was free from
a contagious or infectious disease. Behr further stated that he
contacted the nurse referred to in the doctor's note and she just
reiterated the information contained in the note. Behr continued to
communicate with the Illinois Department of Public Health and the
Evanston board of health to try to get an opinion as to whether
Davis' condition made him ineligible to work in a nursing home. As
stated, Behr never received a conclusive answer from either of
these agencies.
For several weeks after he was initially requested to go home,
Davis contacted the Raintree facility on numerous occasions to find
out if Behr had received an answer from the board of health and if
he could return to work. Each time he called, Davis was told that
Raintree had not yet received an answer from public health
officials. From the time that he left the facility on January 12,
1988, Davis was never contacted by either Behr or Smith and was
never allowed to return to work. Throughout this time when Behr was
seeking an official opinion as to the impact of Davis' condition on
his employment, Davis received no salary from Raintree.
In early February 1988, Davis' brother, who also worked as a
cook at Raintree, informed Davis that he had been fired. Davis
testified that he believed what his brother told him because he had
not heard from anyone at Raintree for over three weeks. Davis did
not call Raintree or seek confirmation that he had been fired. In
early February, Davis filed for unemployment compensation benefits.
Raintree contested the unemployment claim contending that it had
never terminated Davis' employment. Davis was ultimately denied
unemployment benefits.
On February 3, 1988, Davis filed a discrimination charge with
the Illinois Department of Human Rights. After an investigation of
the charge, on January 5, 1989, the Department of Human Rights
filed a complaint on behalf of Davis, alleging that Raintree
discriminated against Davis on the basis of a physical handicap. In
February of 1989, Raintree offered Davis another position, at the
same $4.20 rate of pay per hour, at a different nursing home
facility located in Highland Park, Illinois. At the time of the
offer, Davis lived at 43rd and Michigan Avenue in downtown Chicago.
Davis did not own a car and relied on public transportation. The
job at Highland Park was over 40 miles from Davis' home and would
require approximately a 2
Illinois Law
Illinois State Laws
Illinois Tax
Illinois Court
Illinois Labor Laws
> Minimum Wage in Illinois
Illinois Agencies