Private organizations could be on the hook for possible payouts under lawsuits brought under an Illinois human rights law, after the Illinois Supreme Court declared lawsuits over discrimination of access can apply to private membership-based organizations if they rent "places of public accommodation."
The decision, however, leaves open questions concerning how an expansive interpretation of that reasoning might conflict with key constitutional liberties, such as First Amendment rights to freedom of association and freedom of religion.
On March 8, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled in favor of the family of a female DuPage County teen, known as M.U., who was kicked out of local youth hockey organization, Team Illinois, after her parents informed club officials that the teen "was being treated for anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts."
Charlie Wysong
| Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym
According to the court decision, Team Illinois leadership in November 2019 allegedly "agreed ... to banish [M.U.] from Team Illinois until she was able to participate 100% in Team Illinois activities.
M.U. was allowed to return to Team Illinois activities in December 2019 after her parents threatened to sue.
They filed suit in 2020, claiming Team Illinois discriminated against M.U., because under the Illinois Human Rights Act, her clinical mental health diagnoses make her a disabled person. They claim that, since Team Illinois and its parent organization, the Amateur Hockey Association of Illinois, rent space at Seven Bridges Ice Arena in suburban Woodridge for practices, training activities and games, those organizations are subject to lawsuits under the Human Rights Act for allegedly discriminating against the teen, as a person with disabilities.
In response, Team Illinois argued the access discrimination claims should not apply to them, because they are not a "place of public accommodation," but rather a membership-based organization which pre-screens members, via tryouts, which rents, but does not own, the ice arena.
Further, they noted M.U. was never banned from using the ice arena, only from participating in exclusive Team Illinois activities and the space in the arena rented by Team Illinois, when member teams are using it.
A DuPage County judge sided with Team Illinois in 2021, dismissing the lawsuit from M.U.'s family.
However, that decision was reversed on appeal. A three-justice panel of the Illinois Second District Appellate Court agreed that Team Illinois, itself, was not a "place of public accommodation," as defined by the IHRA law. But the appellate justices instead ruled that Team Illinois should be treated as a "person" under the IHRA subject to M.U.'s lawsuit, because they rented the ice rink - a "place of public accommodation" - and then allegedly denied M.U. "full and equal enjoyment of the portions of the Seven Bridges facility that were leased and operated by Team Illinois."
Team Illinois then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, asking them to overturn that holding.
The case drew strong interest, with multiple organizations filing so-called amicus briefs- or "friend of the court" briefs - on both sides of the question.
On one side, disability rights advocates and progressive activists argued the appellate ruling didn't go far enough. They argued all organizations should be treated as "places of public accommodation," lest discrimination be allowed.
On the other side, groups including the religious freedom advocacy group the Thomas More Society and the Boy Scouts of America urged the state high court to overrule the appeals court. They argued the application of the IHRA in the manner sought by plaintiffs in the lawsuit and affirmed by the appellate court would come into direct conflict with the First Amendment constitutional freedoms, including the right of individuals and membership organizations to associate or not associate with whoever they wish.
They argued the renting of "places of public accommodation" does not mean those organizations automatically must surrender those rights.
In its brief, for instance, the Thomas More Society argued the appellate ruling amounted to "stunning overreach," which could produce an "endless list of examples which demonstrate the absurd consequences flowing from its interpretation of the IHRA." They noted, for instance, that the ruling could be used to justify lawsuits against churches which rent public forest preserve facilities for church picnics; lawsuits against female rape support groups which rent space in hospitals, but exclude male participants from their meetings; lawsuits against "Girl Scouts selling cookies from an assigned space on grocery store property who refuse to allow unrelated adult men to join their sales efforts;" and lawsuits against "families that rent space at public pools" for a birthday party and wish to restrict admission only to certain invited guests.
"The Appellate Court misinterpreted the IHRA in a way that requires faith-based organizations, as well as innumerable other organizations which make temporary use of public accommodations, to surrender their rights to expressive association or face liability under the IHRA," the Thomas More Society wrote in its brief.
In a brief of his own supporting the appellate decision, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul downplayed those constitutional concerns, saying language in the law prohibits it from being used "in a way that violates the Constitution," meaning "a religious group could not be forced to accept a nonbeliever, and a political party could not be forced to accept a member with opposing views, if such individuals would significantly interfere with the groups' ability to express their views."
Raoul argued that finding for Team Illinois would too sharply curtail the reach and scope of the IHRA, which should be read broadly to uphold lawmakers' desire "to ensure that all individuals in Illinois can access public accommodations without discrimination."
A unanimous Supreme Court largely agreed with Raoul.
In that ruling, the court limited itself to the conclusion that Team Illinois' use of the Seven Bridges facility opens it to liability under the IHRA law.
The court also declared it did not believe such an interpretation of the law necessarily conflicts with the First Amendment or other constitutional liberty protections by "'reaching into the affairs' of religious, academic, political, charitable, and other private organizations, including their decisions on funding, membership, personnel, and internal disciplinary matters."
"We disagree," the court said. "By its terms, (the IHRA law) does not subject all activities of an organization to the Act. It is strictly limited to actions that deny a person the full and equal enjoyment of a place of public accommodation."
The decision does not offer any further guidance on what such actions to deny "full and equal enjoyment" may entail.
The justices further shied away from addressing the question of whether Team Illinois, or other private organizations, could themselves be considered "places of public accommodation."
And they declined to "provide guidance regarding the parameters of the private club exemption" provided in the IHRA. Team Illinois had argued the exemption should apply to them, as a private club. However, the court noted the Seven Bridges ice arena used by Team Illinois is not a "private club."
Following the decision, Team Illinois and the AHAI declined to discuss questions from the Cook County Record regarding First Amendment implications of the ruling.
However, the hockey organizations released the following statement responding to the decision: “The decision by the Illinois Supreme Court comes at an early stage in the litigation before any factual determinations on the merits of the allegations. Team Illinois and AHAI strongly deny they did anything wrong and will continue to vigorously defend their actions, while both organizations continue demonstrating their commitment to policies of inclusion and non-discrimination on and off the ice.”
The Thomas More Society declined comment on the decision.
The state high court's unanimous opinion was authored by Justice Joy V. Cunningham.
Cunningham was appointed to the court at the apparent request of former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Anne M. Burke, to replace Burke following her retirement in 2022. Cunningham is now seeking election to a full 10-year term on the high court running in the Democratic Party primary election in Cook County. She is opposed by Illinois Appellate Court Justice Jesse Reyes. Early voting is underway, and Election Day is March 19.
Plaintiffs have been represented by attorneys Charles D. Wysong and Justin M. Tresnowski, of the firm of Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, of Chicago.
Team Illinois and AHAI have been represented by attorneys James M. McGing, of Miller & McGing, of Chicago; and Timothy D. Elliott, Heather L. Kramer and Daniel J. Szczesny, of Rathje Woodward, of Wheaton.