ILCS » Chapter 775 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

775 ILCS 5/8A-103 (2026)

Review by Commission

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(775 ILCS 5/8A-103) (from Ch. 68, par. 8A-103)
    Sec. 8A-103. Review by Commission.
    (A) Exceptions. Within 30 days of the receipt of service of the hearing officer's recommended order, a party may file with the Commission any written exceptions to any part of the order. Exceptions shall be supported by argument and served on all parties at the time they are filed. If no exceptions are filed, the recommended order shall become the order of the Commission without further review. The Commission shall issue a notice that no exceptions have been filed no later than 30 days after the exceptions were due.
    (B) Response. Within 21 days of the receipt of service of exceptions, a party may file with the Commission any response to the exceptions. Responses shall be supported by argument and served on all parties at the time they are filed.
    (C) Oral Argument. A party may request oral argument at the time of filing exceptions or a response to exceptions. When any party requests oral argument in this manner, the Commission may schedule oral argument to be heard by a panel of 3 Commission members. If the panel grants oral argument, it shall notify all parties of the time and place of argument. Any party so notified may present oral argument.
    (D) Remand.
        (1) The Commission, on its own motion or at the
    
written request of any party made at the time of filing exceptions or responses, may remand a case to a hearing officer for purposes of a rehearing to reconsider evidence or hear additional evidence in the matter. The Commission shall issue and serve on all parties a written order remanding the cause and specifying the additional evidence.
        (2) The hearing officer presiding at a rehearing
    
shall set a hearing date, in accordance with subsection (B) of Section 8A-102, upon due notice to all parties.
        (3) After conclusion of the rehearing, the hearing
    
officer shall file written findings and recommendations with the Commission and serve copies at the same time on all parties in the same manner as provided in subsection (I) of Section 8A-102. The findings and recommendations shall be subject to review by the Commission as provided in this Section.
    (E) Review.
        (1) Following the filing of the findings and
    
recommended order of the hearing officer and any written exceptions and responses, and any other proceedings provided for in this Section, the Commission, through a panel of 3 members, shall decide whether to accept the case for review. If the panel declines to review the recommended order, it shall become the order of the Commission. The Commission shall issue a notice within 30 days after a Commission panel votes to decline review. If the panel accepts the case, it shall review the record and may adopt, modify, or reverse in whole or in part the findings and recommendations of the hearing officer.
        (2) When reviewing a recommended order, the
    
Commission shall adopt the hearing officer's findings of fact if they are not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
        (3) If the Commission accepts a case for review, it
    
shall file its written order and decision in its office and serve copies on all parties together with a notification of the date when it was filed. If the Commission declines to review a recommended order or if no exceptions have been filed, it shall issue a short statement notifying the parties that the recommended order has become the order of the Commission. The statement shall be served on the parties by first class mail.
        (4) A recommended order authored by a non-presiding
    
hearing officer under subparagraph 8A-102(I)(4) of this Act shall be reviewed in the same manner as a recommended order authored by a presiding hearing officer.
    (F) Rehearing.
        (1) Within 30 days after service of the Commission's
    
order or statement declining review, a party may file an application for rehearing before the full Commission. The application shall be served on all other parties. The Commission shall have discretion to order a response to the application. The filing of an application for rehearing is optional. The failure to file an application for rehearing shall not be considered a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. This amendatory Act of 1991 applies to pending proceedings as well as those filed on or after its effective date.
        (2) Applications for rehearing shall be viewed with
    
disfavor and may be granted, by vote of 3 Commission members, only upon a clear demonstration that a matter raises legal issues of significant impact or that Commission decisions are in conflict.
        (3) When an application for rehearing is granted, the
    
original order shall be nullified and oral argument before the full Commission shall be scheduled. The Commission may request the parties to file any additional written arguments it deems necessary.
    (G) Modification of Order.
        (1) At any time before a final order of the court in
    
a proceeding for judicial review under this Act, the Commission or the 3-member panel that decided the matter, upon reasonable notice, may modify or set aside in whole or in part any finding or order made by it in accordance with this Section.
        (2) Any modification shall be accomplished by the
    
filing and service of a supplemental order and decision by the Commission in the same manner as provided in this Section.
    (H) Extensions of time. All motions for extensions of time with respect to matters being considered by the Commission shall be decided by the full Commission or a 3-member panel. If a motion for extension of time cannot be ruled upon before the filing deadline sought to be extended, the Chairperson of the Commission shall be authorized to extend the filing deadline to the date of the next Commission meeting at which the motion can be considered.
(Source: P.A. 100-1066, eff. 8-24-18; 100-1154, eff. 12-19-18.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Cigna v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 190620 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cigna v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 190620 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 3× “” 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 2018). The question we are asked to resolve is whether PCI and Cigna’s objections were filed “[w]ithin 30 days of the receipt of service of the hearing officer’s recommended order,” as required by the Act.”
Champaign-Urbana Pub. Health Dist. v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2022 IL App (4th) 200357 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 4× “775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West - 37 - 2018); 56 Ill.”
Schwartz v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2024 IL App (4th) 231248 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 4× “” 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 2022); 56 Ill.”
Weatherly v. Illinois Human Rights Com'n, 788 N.E.2d 1175 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “On June 13, 2001, the executive director of the Commission filed a notice pursuant to section 8A-103(E)(3) of the Act (775 ILCS 5/8A-103(E)(3) (West 2000)), informing the parties that the Commission had declined to review the ALJ's recommended order and decision and, as a…”
Cook Cnty. Sheriff Dep't of Corr. v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2022 IL App (1st) 210174 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 4× “775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 2020). If no exceptions are filed, the ROD will become the final order of the Commission without further -7- No.”
Tate v. Amer. Gen. Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 655 N.E.2d 18 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 3× “(775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 1992).) A party may also request oral argument at the time of filing exceptions.”
Duffy v. Illinois Dept. of Human Rights, 820 N.E.2d 1186 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “The administrative law judge (ALJ) recommended that the matter be dismissed, finding that a medical clinic dispensing medical services to the public is not a "business" as contemplated under section 5-101(A)(1) of the Act and thus does not qualify as a "place of public…”
Archambeau v. Fertility Centers of Illinois, 2025 IL App (1st) 231452 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 2020); see also 56 Ill.”
Pinnacle Ltd. P'ship v. Illinois Human Right Comm'n (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “" 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(E)(2) (West 2002). Prior to July 18, 1996, section 8-111(A)(2) of the Act provided that "[i]n any proceeding brought for judicial review [by the appellate court], the Commission's findings of fact shall be sustained unless the court determines that such…”
Dep't of Cent. Mgmt. Servs. v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., State Panel (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3× “775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 2008). Once exceptions are filed, the Commission may decline to review the - 12 - recommended order, making it the order of the Commission.”
Holsapple v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (5th) 190013-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 2012). If a party fails to file the written exceptions within the 30-day deadline, the recommended order 9 becomes the order of the Commission without further review.”
Mustafa v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (2d) 170040-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “” 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(F)(2) (West 2016). Mustafa’s request for rehearing en banc did not argue that either of these requirements was present.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) — 10 cases
Cigna v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 190620 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “” 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 2018). The question we are asked to resolve is whether PCI and Cigna’s objections were filed “[w]ithin 30 days of the receipt of service of the hearing officer’s recommended order,” as required by the Act.”
Champaign-Urbana Pub. Health Dist. v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2022 IL App (4th) 200357 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West - 37 - 2018); 56 Ill.”
Schwartz v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2024 IL App (4th) 231248 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “” 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 2022); 56 Ill.”
Cook Cnty. Sheriff Dep't of Corr. v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2022 IL App (1st) 210174 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 2020). If no exceptions are filed, the ROD will become the final order of the Commission without further -7- No.”
Tate v. Amer. Gen. Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 655 N.E.2d 18 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “(775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 1992).) A party may also request oral argument at the time of filing exceptions.”
— 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(B) — 1 case
Champaign-Urbana Pub. Health Dist. v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2022 IL App (4th) 200357 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West - 37 - 2018); 56 Ill.”
— 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(C) — 1 case
Tate v. Amer. Gen. Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 655 N.E.2d 18 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “(775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 1992).) A party may also request oral argument at the time of filing exceptions.”
— 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(D) — 3 cases
Champaign-Urbana Pub. Health Dist. v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2022 IL App (4th) 200357 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West - 37 - 2018); 56 Ill.”
Tate v. Amer. Gen. Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 655 N.E.2d 18 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “(775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 1992).) A party may also request oral argument at the time of filing exceptions.”
Harton v. City of Chicago (Ill. App. Ct. 1998).
— 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(D)(1) — 1 case
Schwartz v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2024 IL App (4th) 231248 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “” 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 2022); 56 Ill.”
— 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(E) — 1 case
Champaign-Urbana Pub. Health Dist. v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2022 IL App (4th) 200357 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West - 37 - 2018); 56 Ill.”
— 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(E)(1) — 7 cases
Cigna v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (1st) 190620 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “” 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 2018). The question we are asked to resolve is whether PCI and Cigna’s objections were filed “[w]ithin 30 days of the receipt of service of the hearing officer’s recommended order,” as required by the Act.”
Schwartz v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2024 IL App (4th) 231248 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “” 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 2022); 56 Ill.”
Duffy v. Illinois Dept. of Human Rights, 820 N.E.2d 1186 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “The administrative law judge (ALJ) recommended that the matter be dismissed, finding that a medical clinic dispensing medical services to the public is not a "business" as contemplated under section 5-101(A)(1) of the Act and thus does not qualify as a "place of public…”
Smith v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 2025 IL App (1st) 240373-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2025).
Duffy v. Illinois Dep't of Human Rights (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
— 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(E)(2) — 4 cases
Pinnacle Ltd. P'ship v. Illinois Human Right Comm'n (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “" 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(E)(2) (West 2002). Prior to July 18, 1996, section 8-111(A)(2) of the Act provided that "[i]n any proceeding brought for judicial review [by the appellate court], the Commission's findings of fact shall be sustained unless the court determines that such…”
Dep't of Cent. Mgmt. Servs. v. Illinois Labor Relations Bd., State Panel (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 2008). Once exceptions are filed, the Commission may decline to review the - 12 - recommended order, making it the order of the Commission.”
Irick v. Human Rights Comm'n (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
In re Toledo (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
— 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(E)(3) — 2 cases
Weatherly v. Illinois Human Rights Com'n, 788 N.E.2d 1175 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “On June 13, 2001, the executive director of the Commission filed a notice pursuant to section 8A-103(E)(3) of the Act (775 ILCS 5/8A-103(E)(3) (West 2000)), informing the parties that the Commission had declined to review the ALJ's recommended order and decision and, as a…”
Weatherly v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
— 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(F)(2) — 1 case
Mustafa v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2020 IL App (2d) 170040-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “” 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(F)(2) (West 2016). Mustafa’s request for rehearing en banc did not argue that either of these requirements was present.”
— 775 ILCS 5/8A-103(H) — 1 case
Cook Cnty. Sheriff Dep't of Corr. v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n, 2022 IL App (1st) 210174 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “775 ILCS 5/8A-103(A) (West 2020). If no exceptions are filed, the ROD will become the final order of the Commission without further -7- No.”
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.