Kalush v. Department of Human Rights Chief Legal Counsel

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[T]he [C]hief [L]egal [C]ounsel would not have had jurisdiction over the new assertion because it was not timely raised in [petitioner’s] charge filed with the Department [of Human Rights]”
• the Commission does not have jurisdiction over new assertions not timely raised in the petitioner’s charge filed with the Department
• a charge must be filed within 180 days of the date an alleged civil rights violation has been committed
• \[T]he [C]hief [L]egal [C]ounsel would not have had jurisdiction over the new assertion because it was not timely raised in [petitioner's] charge filed with the Department [of Human Rights]\
• court addressed adequacy of Illinois Department of Human Rights’ investigation and dismissal of employment disrimination charge under the Act and chief legal counsel’s failure to further investigate dismissal upon request for review
• “Based upon the record before us, we cannot say that the Chief Legal Counsel’s decision to forego [sic] further - 10 - investigation, and the implicit finding thereby that the Department’s investigation was sufficient, was an abuse of discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).