Mein v. Masonite Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the IHRA’s limitation provision precluded direct actions for discharges based on age
• holding IHRA is \the exclusive source for redress of alleged human rights violations\
• affirming dismissal of claim alleging wrongful discharge on account of age, and citing with approval Teale v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 66 Ill.2d 1, 3 Ill.Dec. 834, 359 N.E.2d 473 (1976
• affirming dismissal of claim alleging wrongful discharge on account of age, and citing with approval Teale v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 66 Ill.2d 1, 3 Ill.Dec. 834, 359 N.E.2d 473 (1976
• affirming dismissal of employee’s retaliatory discharge action as preempted by the IHRA
• “[t]he legislature has specifically provided *** that courts have no jurisdiction to hear independent actions for civil rights violations”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).