2024 IL App (1st) 230148-U No. 1-23-0148 Order filed October 22, 2024 Second Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ JERICO MATIAS CRUZ, ) Petition for Direct ) Administrative Review of a Petitioner-Appellant, ) Decision of the Human Rights ) Commission. v. ) ) Charge No. 2021 CP 2435 THE ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, ) ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, and ) STARBUCKS CORPORATION, ) ) Respondents-Appellees. )
JUSTICE ELLIS delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Van Tine and Justice Howse concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Affirmed. The Illinois Human Rights Commission did not abuse its discretion in upholding the dismissal of petitioner’s charge of discrimination for failure to proceed.
¶2 Petitioner, Jerico Matias Cruz, filed a charge of discrimination with the Illinois Department
of Human Rights (IDHR) pursuant to the Illinois Human Rights Act (Act) (775 ILCS 5/1-101 et
seq. (West 2020)). The charge alleged that Starbucks Corporation, doing business as Starbucks No. 1-23-0148
Coffee Company store 58413 (Starbucks), discriminated against him based on race, color, national
origin, military status, and citizenship status. The IDHR dismissed the charge for failure to
proceed. Cruz requested a review with the Illinois Human Rights Commission (Commission),
which sustained the finding. Cruz filed a direct appeal with this Court. We affirm.
¶3 On October 21, 2021, Cruz filed the charge with the IDHR, alleging he was discriminated
against by Starbucks, where he was denied the full and equal enjoyment of Starbuck’s facility
based on his race (Asian), color (medium-complexioned), national origin (Philippines), military
status (U.S. armed forces veteran), and citizenship status (naturalized citizen). For all claims, he
alleged that, on June 13, 2021, Starbucks told him to leave its facility for the “given reason” that
he was talking too loudly on his phone and “by calling” the police, who required him to leave the
Starbucks. Cruz claimed similarly situated patrons not in his protected classes were treated
differently under similar circumstances.
¶4 On June 9, 2022, the IDHR dismissed Cruz’s charge for failure to proceed and sent Cruz a
notice of the dismissal. In the notice, the IDHR stated that on December 15 and 22, 2021, its staff
left Cruz voicemail messages to contact its staff. Voicemail messages were also left on December
22, 2021, for Cruz’s designated contact persons. On April 9, 2022, staff mailed Cruz a letter
requesting that he contact staff immediately. On April 19, 2022, staff mailed Cruz another letter
requesting that he contact staff no later than May 24, 2022, and advising him that failure to do so
would result in dismissal of his charge. The mail sent to Cruz was not returned as undeliverable.
The IDHR also sent a copy of the April 19, 2022, letter to Cruz’s designated contact person. As of
May 24, 2022, Cruz failed to contact staff as requested. The IDHR therefore dismissed Cruz’s
charge for failure to proceed because he did not adequately respond to its reasonable requests.
-2- No. 1-23-0148
¶5 On September 12, 2022, Cruz filed a request for review with the Commission. He stated
that on August 18, 2021, he emailed Northeastern Illinois University’s (NEIU) help desk about
being unable to access his student account and email. Cruz attached the email as an exhibit. He
asserted that he still had no access to the account.
¶6 Cruz also stated that, on November 6, 2021, he sent an email to the IDHR’s Intake Unit
with a completed complainant questionnaire regarding his charge and, on November 7, 2021,
emailed IDHR’s Intake Unit with an “updated” questionnaire. Cruz attached both emails as
exhibits. They reflect that defendant listed the same mailing address as he used on his request for
review, which was the same as the one listed on his charge: an address on the 5100 block of North
Keating in Chicago. As his “argument” supporting his request for review, Cruz asserted that he
“does not have access to his NEIU.EDU Email account since August 2021.”
¶7 On October 18, 2022, the IDHR filed a response to Cruz’s request for review, reiterating
its repeated attempts to reach Cruz. The IDHR elaborated that on April 19, 2022, it mailed Cruz a
notice of fact-finding conference scheduled for May 17, 2022. On that same date, the IDHR mailed
Cruz a letter from its staff, stating, in pertinent part:
“I have attempted to contact you by phone and mail unsuccessfully. It is important that I
speak with you immediately to conduct a Complainant Interview, obtain your settlement
proposal(s) and confirm your attendance at the Fact-Finding Conference scheduled for May
17, 2022. *** If you do not contact me within 30 days from receipt of this letter, I will have
no other alternative but to cancel the conference and recommend dismissal of your charge
for failure to proceed with the investigation.”
-3- No. 1-23-0148
The letter was mailed with proper postage to defendant’s address of record (his North Keating
address) and was not returned by the postal service as “undeliverable.” The IDHR also mailed a
copy of the letter to Cruz’s alternate contact persons. The IDHR asserted that Cruz’s “failure to
act was deliberate or contumacious and unwarrantedly disregarded the [IDHR’s] process.”
¶9 On December 27, 2022, the Commission entered a final order sustaining the IDHR’s
dismissal of petitioner’s charge for failure to proceed. The Commission found that Cruz did not
respond to the IDHR’s repeated attempts to reach him by telephone and mail beginning in
December 2021, even despite a notice warning him that failure to respond could result in dismissal
of the charge. The Commission stated that Cruz’s alleged inability to access his email account did
not explain why he failed to respond to the IDHR’s voicemail messages and letters, which are the
methods of communication set forth in the IDHR’s administrative rules. The Commission found
that Cruz did not establish that he informed the IDHR that he was unreachable or otherwise
cooperate as required by the IDHR’s rules. The Commission concluded that it was within the
IDHR’s discretion to dismiss the charge based on Cruz’s failure to cooperate.
¶ 10 Pursuant to section 8-111(B)(1) of the Act, Cruz timely filed a pro se petition for direct
administrative review in this court. See 775 ILCS 5/8–111(B)(1) (West 2022).
¶ 11 On appeal, Cruz asks that we reverse the Commission’s decision sustaining the dismissal
of his charge. He argues that the IDHR improperly failed to investigate and hold a hearing on his
charge. He also contends the Commission failed to “properly review” the exhibits he attached to
his request for review, “procedurally follow and review” his request for review as provided for
under the Act and the administrative code, and “properly review the prima facie evidence and
material facts” set forth in his complaint and request for review.
-4- No. 1-23-0148
¶ 12 We review the Commission’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Young v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2024 IL App (1st) 230148-U No. 1-23-0148 Order filed October 22, 2024 Second Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ JERICO MATIAS CRUZ, ) Petition for Direct ) Administrative Review of a Petitioner-Appellant, ) Decision of the Human Rights ) Commission. v. ) ) Charge No. 2021 CP 2435 THE ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, ) ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, and ) STARBUCKS CORPORATION, ) ) Respondents-Appellees. )
JUSTICE ELLIS delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Van Tine and Justice Howse concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Affirmed. The Illinois Human Rights Commission did not abuse its discretion in upholding the dismissal of petitioner’s charge of discrimination for failure to proceed.
¶2 Petitioner, Jerico Matias Cruz, filed a charge of discrimination with the Illinois Department
of Human Rights (IDHR) pursuant to the Illinois Human Rights Act (Act) (775 ILCS 5/1-101 et
seq. (West 2020)). The charge alleged that Starbucks Corporation, doing business as Starbucks No. 1-23-0148
Coffee Company store 58413 (Starbucks), discriminated against him based on race, color, national
origin, military status, and citizenship status. The IDHR dismissed the charge for failure to
proceed. Cruz requested a review with the Illinois Human Rights Commission (Commission),
which sustained the finding. Cruz filed a direct appeal with this Court. We affirm.
¶3 On October 21, 2021, Cruz filed the charge with the IDHR, alleging he was discriminated
against by Starbucks, where he was denied the full and equal enjoyment of Starbuck’s facility
based on his race (Asian), color (medium-complexioned), national origin (Philippines), military
status (U.S. armed forces veteran), and citizenship status (naturalized citizen). For all claims, he
alleged that, on June 13, 2021, Starbucks told him to leave its facility for the “given reason” that
he was talking too loudly on his phone and “by calling” the police, who required him to leave the
Starbucks. Cruz claimed similarly situated patrons not in his protected classes were treated
differently under similar circumstances.
¶4 On June 9, 2022, the IDHR dismissed Cruz’s charge for failure to proceed and sent Cruz a
notice of the dismissal. In the notice, the IDHR stated that on December 15 and 22, 2021, its staff
left Cruz voicemail messages to contact its staff. Voicemail messages were also left on December
22, 2021, for Cruz’s designated contact persons. On April 9, 2022, staff mailed Cruz a letter
requesting that he contact staff immediately. On April 19, 2022, staff mailed Cruz another letter
requesting that he contact staff no later than May 24, 2022, and advising him that failure to do so
would result in dismissal of his charge. The mail sent to Cruz was not returned as undeliverable.
The IDHR also sent a copy of the April 19, 2022, letter to Cruz’s designated contact person. As of
May 24, 2022, Cruz failed to contact staff as requested. The IDHR therefore dismissed Cruz’s
charge for failure to proceed because he did not adequately respond to its reasonable requests.
-2- No. 1-23-0148
¶5 On September 12, 2022, Cruz filed a request for review with the Commission. He stated
that on August 18, 2021, he emailed Northeastern Illinois University’s (NEIU) help desk about
being unable to access his student account and email. Cruz attached the email as an exhibit. He
asserted that he still had no access to the account.
¶6 Cruz also stated that, on November 6, 2021, he sent an email to the IDHR’s Intake Unit
with a completed complainant questionnaire regarding his charge and, on November 7, 2021,
emailed IDHR’s Intake Unit with an “updated” questionnaire. Cruz attached both emails as
exhibits. They reflect that defendant listed the same mailing address as he used on his request for
review, which was the same as the one listed on his charge: an address on the 5100 block of North
Keating in Chicago. As his “argument” supporting his request for review, Cruz asserted that he
“does not have access to his NEIU.EDU Email account since August 2021.”
¶7 On October 18, 2022, the IDHR filed a response to Cruz’s request for review, reiterating
its repeated attempts to reach Cruz. The IDHR elaborated that on April 19, 2022, it mailed Cruz a
notice of fact-finding conference scheduled for May 17, 2022. On that same date, the IDHR mailed
Cruz a letter from its staff, stating, in pertinent part:
“I have attempted to contact you by phone and mail unsuccessfully. It is important that I
speak with you immediately to conduct a Complainant Interview, obtain your settlement
proposal(s) and confirm your attendance at the Fact-Finding Conference scheduled for May
17, 2022. *** If you do not contact me within 30 days from receipt of this letter, I will have
no other alternative but to cancel the conference and recommend dismissal of your charge
for failure to proceed with the investigation.”
-3- No. 1-23-0148
The letter was mailed with proper postage to defendant’s address of record (his North Keating
address) and was not returned by the postal service as “undeliverable.” The IDHR also mailed a
copy of the letter to Cruz’s alternate contact persons. The IDHR asserted that Cruz’s “failure to
act was deliberate or contumacious and unwarrantedly disregarded the [IDHR’s] process.”
¶9 On December 27, 2022, the Commission entered a final order sustaining the IDHR’s
dismissal of petitioner’s charge for failure to proceed. The Commission found that Cruz did not
respond to the IDHR’s repeated attempts to reach him by telephone and mail beginning in
December 2021, even despite a notice warning him that failure to respond could result in dismissal
of the charge. The Commission stated that Cruz’s alleged inability to access his email account did
not explain why he failed to respond to the IDHR’s voicemail messages and letters, which are the
methods of communication set forth in the IDHR’s administrative rules. The Commission found
that Cruz did not establish that he informed the IDHR that he was unreachable or otherwise
cooperate as required by the IDHR’s rules. The Commission concluded that it was within the
IDHR’s discretion to dismiss the charge based on Cruz’s failure to cooperate.
¶ 10 Pursuant to section 8-111(B)(1) of the Act, Cruz timely filed a pro se petition for direct
administrative review in this court. See 775 ILCS 5/8–111(B)(1) (West 2022).
¶ 11 On appeal, Cruz asks that we reverse the Commission’s decision sustaining the dismissal
of his charge. He argues that the IDHR improperly failed to investigate and hold a hearing on his
charge. He also contends the Commission failed to “properly review” the exhibits he attached to
his request for review, “procedurally follow and review” his request for review as provided for
under the Act and the administrative code, and “properly review the prima facie evidence and
material facts” set forth in his complaint and request for review.
-4- No. 1-23-0148
¶ 12 We review the Commission’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Young v. Illinois Human
Rights Comm’n, 2012 IL App (1st) 112204, ¶ 32. Under that standard, this court will not reverse
the Commission’s decision unless it is arbitrary or capricious, meaning “it contravenes legislative
intent, fails to consider a critical aspect of the matter, or offer[s] an explanation so implausible that
it cannot be regarded as the result of an exercise of the agency’s expertise.” Id. ¶ 33. We will not
reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the Commission. Id.
¶ 13 As a preliminary matter, we agree with the Commission that Cruz arguably forfeited a
review of the Commission’s decision on the merits. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff.
Oct. 1, 2020) requires a brief to “contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor,
with citation of the authorities and the pages of the record relied on.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff.
Oct. 1, 2020). The rule further provides that “[p]oints not argued are forfeited and shall not be
raised in the reply brief, in oral argument, or on petition for rehearing.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff.
Oct. 1, 2020).
¶ 14 Cruz does not develop any substantive argument, let alone one supported by relevant
authority, addressing the basis for the dismissal of his charge: his failure to respond to the IDHR’s
repeated attempts to reach him via the means specified in its rules. Cruz’s failures to do so forfeits
our consideration of the issue underlying this appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020).
But we choose to address the merits of the appeal, as it is clear that Cruz is challenging the
dismissal of his charge, and we have the benefit of the Commission’s brief. See Twardowski v.
Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 321 Ill. App. 3d 509, 511 (2001) (reviewing merits of
appeal, notwithstanding forfeiture, as merits of appeal could be readily ascertained from record).
-5- No. 1-23-0148
¶ 15 Under the Act, after a complainant has filed a charge with the IDHR, the complainant “must
cooperate with the [IDHR], provide necessary information and be available for interviews and
conferences upon reasonable notice or request by the [IDHR].” 56 Ill. Adm. Code 2520.430(c)
(2007). The complainant must provide the IDHR with a notice of any change in address or
telephone number or of “any prolonged absence from the current address so that he or she can be
located.” Id. When the complainant cannot be located or does not respond to the IDHR’s
reasonable requests, the IDHR may dismiss the charge for failure to proceed and provide a notice
of dismissal specifying the manner in which the complainant has failed to proceed. Id.; 56 Ill.
Adm. Code 2520.560(b)(2) (2020). Notice of the dismissal must be sent to the claimant’s last
known address—here, Cruz’s address on North Keating. Id.
¶ 16 After reviewing the record, we find that Cruz has failed to demonstrate that the
Commission abused its discretion in sustaining the IDHR’s dismissal of his charge for failure to
proceed. The record supports the Commission’s finding that Cruz failed to respond to the IDHR’s
repeated efforts to contact him for a period of some five months via letters sent to his mailing
address of record and phone calls to Cruz and his contact persons. Particularly detrimental, Cruz
failed to contact the IDHR to facilitate an interview and confirm his participation at the fact-finding
conference as reasonably requested by the IDHR.
¶ 17 On that basis, the Commission properly found that Cruz did not cooperate with the
investigation by providing necessary information and being available for interviews and
conferences upon reasonable notice or request by the IDHR. 56 Ill. Adm. Code 2520.430(c)
(2007). Nor, as the Commission properly found, does the record show that Cruz notified the IDHR
of a change in address or telephone number, or regarding a period of prolonged absence from his
-6- No. 1-23-0148
current address. See id. Indeed, it does not appear that Cruz argued to the Commission that he
never received the IDHR’s notices; he provided the Commission with no basis on which to reverse
the IDHR’s dismissal of his charge for failure to proceed. Accordingly, the Commission did not
abuse its discretion when it sustained the IDHR’s dismissal of Cruz’s charge for failure to proceed.
See Casey, 2023 IL App (1st) 220671-U, ¶¶ 23-25 (Commission properly sustained IDHR’s
dismissal of petitioner’s charge for failure to proceed, as petitioner failed to perfect her charge
despite IDHR’s repeated requests to do so).
¶ 18 Cruz claims the Commission failed to properly review the exhibits attached to his request
for review and the “prima facie evidence and material facts,” as well as failing to follow and review
the “administrative procedure” of the Act and administrative code. But his vague, undeveloped
allegations are not enough to overcome the Commission’s finding that the IDHR properly acted
within its discretion and dismissed the charge for failure to proceed. Folbert v. Department of
Human Rights, 303 Ill. App. 3d 13, 25 (1999).
¶ 19 Cruz also appears to challenge the dismissal because no in-person interview and/or fact-
finding conference was held. Suffice it to say, his failure to respond to IDHR’s multiple attempts
to contact him and his failure to failure to cooperate with the investigation were the reason the
IDHR could not conduct those proceedings.
¶ 20 We affirm the Commission’s final decision in all respects.
¶ 21 Affirmed.
-7-