ILCS » Chapter 775 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

775 ILCS 5/8-111 (2026)

Court Proceedings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(775 ILCS 5/8-111) (from Ch. 68, par. 8-111)
    Sec. 8-111. Court Proceedings.
    (A) Civil Actions Commenced in Circuit Court.
        (1) Venue. Civil actions commenced in a circuit court
    
pursuant to Section 7A-102 or 8B-102 shall be commenced in the circuit court in the county in which the civil rights violation was allegedly committed.
        (2) If a civil action is commenced in a circuit
    
court, the form of the complaint shall be in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure.
        (3) Jury Trial. If a civil action is commenced in a
    
circuit court under Section 7A-102 or 8B-102, the plaintiff or defendant may demand trial by jury.
        (4) Remedies. Upon the finding of a civil rights
    
violation, the circuit court or jury may award any of the remedies set forth in Section 8A-104 or 8B-104.
    (B) Judicial Review.
        (1) Any complainant or respondent may apply for and
    
obtain judicial review of a final order of the Commission entered under this Act by filing a petition for review in the Appellate Court within 35 days from the date that a copy of the decision sought to be reviewed was served upon the party affected by the decision. If a 3-member panel or the full Commission finds that an interlocutory order involves a question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, any party may petition the Appellate Court for permission to appeal the order. The procedure for obtaining the required Commission findings and the permission of the Appellate Court shall be governed by Supreme Court Rule 308, except the references to the "trial court" shall be understood as referring to the Commission.
        (2) In any proceeding brought for judicial review,
    
the Commission's findings of fact shall be sustained unless the court determines that such findings are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
        (3) Venue. Proceedings for judicial review shall be
    
commenced in the appellate court for the district wherein the civil rights violation which is the subject of the Commission's order was allegedly committed.
    (C) Judicial Enforcement.
        (1) When the Commission, at the instance of the
    
Department or an aggrieved party, concludes that any person has violated a valid order of the Commission issued pursuant to this Act, and the violation and its effects are not promptly corrected, the Commission, through a panel of 3 members, shall order the Department to commence an action in the name of the People of the State of Illinois by complaint, alleging the violation, attaching a copy of the order of the Commission and praying for the issuance of an order directing such person, his or her or its officers, agents, servants, successors and assigns to comply with the order of the Commission.
        (2) An aggrieved party may file a complaint for
    
enforcement of a valid order of the Commission directly in Circuit Court.
        (3) Upon the commencement of an action filed under
    
paragraphs (1) or (2) of this subsection, the court shall have jurisdiction over the proceedings and power to grant or refuse, in whole or in part, the relief sought or impose such other remedy as the court may deem proper.
        (4) The court may stay an order of the Commission in
    
accordance with the applicable Supreme Court rules, pending disposition of the proceedings.
        (5) The court may punish for any violation of its
    
order as in the case of civil contempt.
        (6) Venue. Proceedings for judicial enforcement of a
    
Commission order shall be commenced in the circuit court in the county wherein the civil rights violation which is the subject of the Commission's order was committed.
        (7) Enforcement of judicial order. An aggrieved party
    
may take action to collect on a judicial order issued by the Circuit Court in an enforcement action initiated by the State, regardless of whether or not the aggrieved party intervened in an enforcement action.
    (D) Limitation. Except as otherwise provided by law, no court of this state shall have jurisdiction over the subject of an alleged civil rights violation other than as set forth in this Act.
    (E) This amendatory Act of 1996 applies to causes of action filed on or after January 1, 1996.
    (F) The changes made to this Section by this amendatory Act of the 95th General Assembly apply to charges or complaints filed with the Department or the Commission on or after the effective date of those changes.
(Source: P.A. 102-706, eff. 4-22-22; 103-859, eff. 1-1-25.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 172 cases (64 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Mary Richards v. U.S. Steel, 869 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mary Richards v. U.S. Steel, 869 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “” 775 ILCS 5/8-111(D) (emphases added). 1 That statutory provision tells us that the “subject” of an alleged “civil rights violation” must be heard under the procedures of the Act.”
Cigna v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 190620 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 5× “” 775 ILCS 5/8-111(B) (West 2018). Section 8-111(D) further specifies that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, no court of this state shall have jurisdiction over the subject of an alleged civil rights violation other than as set forth in this Act.”
Brewer v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. Of Ill., 791 N.E.2d 657 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 8× “Plaintiff appeals, arguing that (1) Illinois has consented to being sued in circuit court for disability discrimination; (2) section 8-111(C) of the Illinois Human Rights Act (Human Rights *659 Act) (775 ILCS 5/8-111(C) (West 2000)) allows a circuit court to exercise original…”
Nischan v. Stratosphere Quality, LLC, 865 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2017). “See 775 ILCS 5/8-111(D). It “preempts tort claims that are ‘inextricably linked’ to allegations of sexual harassment.”
Davis v. Haas & Haas, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 588 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 4× “The legislature specifically gave the power of judicial review of the Commission's final orders to the appellate court (775 ILCS 5/8-111(A) (West 1996)) and merely vested the trial court with enforcement authority (775 ILCS 5/8-111(B) (West 1996)).”
Thomas FLAHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAS Rsch. Inst., Defendant-Appellee, 31 F.3d 451 (7th Cir. 1994). “68, ¶ 8-111(D), recodified at 775 ILCS 5/8-111(0). Judicial review is instead available under the IHRA only after the Human Rights Commission has issued a final order on a complaint.”
Cathey Quantock v. Shared Mktg. Servs., Inc., & Rick Lattanzio, 312 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2002). “Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-102(D); 775 ILCS 5/8-111(C); Maksimovic v. Tsogalis, 177 Ill.”
MIFAB, Inc. v. Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 181098 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “¶ 29 On June 4, 2018, petitioner filed a timely petition for review to this court pursuant to section 8-111(B)(1) of the Illinois Human Rights Act (Act) (775 ILCS 5/8-111(B)(1) (West 2018)), naming Towers and the Commission as respondents.”
Arnold v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., 215 F. Supp. 2d 951 (N.D. Ill. 2002). “Analysis I. Illinois Human Rights Act Defendants argue that Arnold’s state law claims are preempted by section 8-lll(C) of the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”).”
Benitez v. Am. Stand. Circuits, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 2d 745 (N.D. Ill. 2010). · cites it 2× “; and (4) these claims are preempted by the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”), 775 ILCS 5/8-111(C). The Court takes each of these arguments in turn.”
Schroeder v. RGIS, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 122483 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “1 (West 2010)), arguing, among other reasons, that plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2010)) because his claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted and, thus, barred by the Illinois Human…”
Weatherly v. Illinois Human Rights Com'n, 788 N.E.2d 1175 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “2d 437 (1989); 775 ILCS 5/8-111(C) (West 1998)). Section 7-102(A)(1) of the Act fixes the time within which a charge of a civil rights violation may be filed with the Department.”
Show all 172 citing cases →
— 775 ILCS 5/8-111(0) — 4 cases
Thomas FLAHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAS Rsch. Inst., Defendant-Appellee, 31 F.3d 451 (7th Cir. 1994). “68, ¶ 8-111(D), recodified at 775 ILCS 5/8-111(0). Judicial review is instead available under the IHRA only after the Human Rights Commission has issued a final order on a complaint.”
Rushing v. United Airlines, 919 F. Supp. 1101 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
Garcia v. Fry, 972 F. Supp. 1133 (N.D. Ill. 1997).
Parker v. Side By Side, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 3d 988 (2014).
— 775 ILCS 5/8-111(A) — 7 cases
Davis v. Haas & Haas, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 588 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “The legislature specifically gave the power of judicial review of the Commission's final orders to the appellate court (775 ILCS 5/8-111(A) (West 1996)) and merely vested the trial court with enforcement authority (775 ILCS 5/8-111(B) (West 1996)).”
Vlupitta v. Walsh Constr. Co., 2016 IL App (1st) 152203 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
Carpenter v. City of Northlake, 948 F. Supp. 759 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
Huff v. Uarco, Inc., 925 F. Supp. 550 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
Vlupitta v. Walsh Constr. Co., 2016 IL App (1st) 152203 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
— 775 ILCS 5/8-111(A)(1) — 11 cases
Dahman v. Illinois Dep't of Human Rights, 778 N.E.2d 732 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002).
Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Human Rights Comm'n, 683 N.E.2d 1011 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997).
Allen v. Lieberman Corrected opinion posted 9/27/05 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
Stone v. Dep't of Human Rights (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
Beard v. Spectrum, LP (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
— 775 ILCS 5/8-111(A)(2) — 4 cases
Carter Coal Co. v. Human Rights Comm'n, 633 N.E.2d 202 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994).
In re Toledo (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
Pinnacle Ltd. P'ship v. Illinois Human Right Comm'n (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
Stone v. Dep't of Human Rights (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
— 775 ILCS 5/8-111(A)(l) — 1 case
Jimenez v. Thompson Steel Co., Inc., 264 F. Supp. 2d 693 (N.D. Ill. 2003).
— 775 ILCS 5/8-111(B) — 11 cases
Cigna v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 190620 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “” 775 ILCS 5/8-111(B) (West 2018). Section 8-111(D) further specifies that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, no court of this state shall have jurisdiction over the subject of an alleged civil rights violation other than as set forth in this Act.”
Windsor Clothing Store v. Castro, 2015 IL App (1st) 142999 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015).
Schwartz v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2024 IL App (4th) 231248 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
Davis v. Haas & Haas, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 588 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “The legislature specifically gave the power of judicial review of the Commission's final orders to the appellate court (775 ILCS 5/8-111(A) (West 1996)) and merely vested the trial court with enforcement authority (775 ILCS 5/8-111(B) (West 1996)).”
Burns v. Bombela-Tobias, 2020 IL App (1st) 182309 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
— 775 ILCS 5/8-111(B)(1) — 66 cases
MIFAB, Inc. v. Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 181098 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “¶ 29 On June 4, 2018, petitioner filed a timely petition for review to this court pursuant to section 8-111(B)(1) of the Illinois Human Rights Act (Act) (775 ILCS 5/8-111(B)(1) (West 2018)), naming Towers and the Commission as respondents.”
Cigna v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 190620 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “” 775 ILCS 5/8-111(B) (West 2018). Section 8-111(D) further specifies that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, no court of this state shall have jurisdiction over the subject of an alleged civil rights violation other than as set forth in this Act.”
Dunn v. Human Rights Comm'n, 2022 IL App (1st) 211155-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
Davis v. Haas & Haas, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 588 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “The legislature specifically gave the power of judicial review of the Commission's final orders to the appellate court (775 ILCS 5/8-111(A) (West 1996)) and merely vested the trial court with enforcement authority (775 ILCS 5/8-111(B) (West 1996)).”
Med. Auxillary Network v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2022 IL App (2d) 200251-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
— 775 ILCS 5/8-111(B)(2) — 30 cases
Cigna v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 190620 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “” 775 ILCS 5/8-111(B) (West 2018). Section 8-111(D) further specifies that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, no court of this state shall have jurisdiction over the subject of an alleged civil rights violation other than as set forth in this Act.”
Davis v. Haas & Haas, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 588 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “The legislature specifically gave the power of judicial review of the Commission's final orders to the appellate court (775 ILCS 5/8-111(A) (West 1996)) and merely vested the trial court with enforcement authority (775 ILCS 5/8-111(B) (West 1996)).”
Dunn v. Human Rights Comm'n, 2022 IL App (1st) 211155-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
Kilpatrick v. The Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 190879-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
Ellis v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 191871-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
— 775 ILCS 5/8-111(B)(3) — 2 cases
Cigna v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 190620 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “” 775 ILCS 5/8-111(B) (West 2018). Section 8-111(D) further specifies that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, no court of this state shall have jurisdiction over the subject of an alleged civil rights violation other than as set forth in this Act.”
Crawford v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (3d) 180728-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
— 775 ILCS 5/8-111(C) — 26 cases
Brewer v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. Of Ill., 791 N.E.2d 657 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “Plaintiff appeals, arguing that (1) Illinois has consented to being sued in circuit court for disability discrimination; (2) section 8-111(C) of the Illinois Human Rights Act (Human Rights *659 Act) (775 ILCS 5/8-111(C) (West 2000)) allows a circuit court to exercise original…”
Cathey Quantock v. Shared Mktg. Servs., Inc., & Rick Lattanzio, 312 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2002). “Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/2-102(D); 775 ILCS 5/8-111(C); Maksimovic v. Tsogalis, 177 Ill.”
Benitez v. Am. Stand. Circuits, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 2d 745 (N.D. Ill. 2010). “; and (4) these claims are preempted by the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”), 775 ILCS 5/8-111(C). The Court takes each of these arguments in turn.”
Weatherly v. Illinois Human Rights Com'n, 788 N.E.2d 1175 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “2d 437 (1989); 775 ILCS 5/8-111(C) (West 1998)). Section 7-102(A)(1) of the Act fixes the time within which a charge of a civil rights violation may be filed with the Department.”
Blount v. Stroud, 915 N.E.2d 925 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009).
— 775 ILCS 5/8-111(D) — 29 cases
Mary Richards v. U.S. Steel, 869 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2017). “” 775 ILCS 5/8-111(D) (emphases added). 1 That statutory provision tells us that the “subject” of an alleged “civil rights violation” must be heard under the procedures of the Act.”
Nischan v. Stratosphere Quality, LLC, 865 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2017). “See 775 ILCS 5/8-111(D). It “preempts tort claims that are ‘inextricably linked’ to allegations of sexual harassment.”
Cigna v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 190620 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “” 775 ILCS 5/8-111(B) (West 2018). Section 8-111(D) further specifies that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, no court of this state shall have jurisdiction over the subject of an alleged civil rights violation other than as set forth in this Act.”
Schroeder v. RGIS, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 122483 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “1 (West 2010)), arguing, among other reasons, that plaintiff’s complaint must be dismissed pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2010)) because his claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress was preempted and, thus, barred by the Illinois Human…”
Vlupitta v. Walsh Constr. Co., 2016 IL App (1st) 152203 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016).
— 775 ILCS 5/8-111(a)(1) — 2 cases
Moren v. Illinois Dept. of Human Rights, 790 N.E.2d 86 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
Moren v. Illinois Dep't of Human Rights Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
— 775 ILCS 5/8-111(c) — 2 cases
Blakely v. Brach & Brock Confections, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 943 (N.D. Ill. 2002).
Habitat Co. v. McClure (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.