A man who was fired from his post as finance director at Fertility Clinics of Illinois after he pleaded guilty to charges of financial crimes while working elsewhere won't be able to continue his legal action accusing the Chicago area chain of fertility clinics of violating a state law protecting people with criminal records from being fired, a state appeals court has ruled - but only because he and his lawyers didn't properly keep up the case before a state agency.
On Feb. 3, a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court agreed the Illinois Human Rights Commission was not wrong to dismiss the complaint brought by Marc Archambeau against the Fertility Clinics of Illinois (FCI).
In the regulatory complaint, Archambeau accused FCI of wrongly terminating his employment as the company's Director of Revenue and Finance in 2017.
In the action, Archambeau particularly accused the company of discriminating against him when he was fired after the company learned that he had been indicted in Cook County and eventually pleaded guilty to crimes related to his previous employment at the University of Illinois Hospital and Health Science Services System.
According to court documents, Archambeau had been hired by FCI in July 2016, putting him over the company's billing and collections. Archambeau reportedly did not have an arrest record at the time he was hired and the company reportedly did not ask if he previously had been arrested or convicted of a crime.
According to court records, Archambeau received two written disciplinary warnings, plus a final warning, by September 2016 "regarding his conduct and relationships with other employees."
Archambeau was arrested in December 2016 and charged with six criminal counts, stemming from his previous employment at the U of I hospitals.
According to court records, Archambeau was charged with theft of more than $100,000; identity theft; money laundering; concealing monetary property of less than $10,000; and two counts of official misconduct.
Archambeau eventually pleaded guilty.
After learning of Archambeau's indictment on the financial crimes, FCI terminated him from its finance director position in June 2017.
In its termination letter, FCI told Archambeau it had learned of the criminal charges against him five months later, after another employee told management. The company said it believed this meant Archambeau "intended to hide" his arrest and guilty plea from his employer.
After he was fired, however, Archambeau filed a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights, accusing FCI of violating the Illinois Human Rights Act by moving to terminate him in response to learning of his indictment.
In 2018, state investigators agreed to allow his action to move forward, finding "there was 'substantial evidence' that a civil rights violation had occurred."
According to court documents, the state Department of Human Rights "determined that Fertility Centers did not have a policy in place which required an employee to report that they had been arrested, and that the company had terminated Archambeau based on his December 2016 arrest."
The Illinois Human Rights Act has been increasingly tightened through the years by the state's Democratic legislative majority to prohibit employers from taking "adverse employment actions" against employees based on criminal records and arrests.
Archambeau's case advanced to proceedings before the Illinois Human Rights Commission, and continued through 2022.
However, neither the state commission nor an administrative law judge presiding over the hearings rendered a decision on the merits of Archambeau's discrimination claims.
According to court records, neither Archambeau nor his attorneys appeared for scheduled and noticed hearings beginning in mid-2021.
The Human Rights Commission then dismissed the matter in 2023, determining "both parties [were] no longer interested in participating in this matter."
One month later, Archambeau petitioned the Commission to reopen the case, claiming he had not appeared, in part, because his lawyer had changed offices and had not received notices of hearings before the Commission for 16 months.
The Commission, however, stood by its decision to dismiss the case, prompting Archambeau to appeal to the First District court, which handles such appeals of state agency decisions.
The appellate justices, however, sided with the Commission. They said they did not believe the Commission's decision "was an abuse of its discretion."
They said they believe the conduct of Archambeau and his legal counsel in the case from mid-2021 onward "was sufficient to warrant" the recommendation and ultimate decision to dismiss his complaint.
They particularly faulted Archambeau and his counsel for failing to properly notify the Commission of any changes of address or contact information.
The justices said they would prefer to rule on the merits of the case under the law. But they said they would allow the Commission's decision to stand ending Archambeau's case, because they agreed the Commission had the authority to reject his explanations for "why he had failed to adequately communicate and participate in his own case for a significant period of time."
"... It is worth noting that many of the events leading to the sanction (dismissal) can be attributed to Archambeau's lackadaisical approach to tracking his own case," the justices wrote.
"Of course, life happens, mail does not get delivered, a party misses a court date, or one lists the wrong address on a filing. However, these mistakes occurred over a prolonged period of time, with some of them intentional in nature, such as choosing not to attend a hearing or delaying in providing updated contact information.
"It is not unreasonable to assume that a party or represented counsel would want to keep track of his own case..."
The appellate decision does not list the counsel for either Archambeau or the Fertility Clinics of Illinois.
The decision was authored by Justice Cynthia Y. Cobbs. Justices Terrence J. Lavin and Aurelia M. Pucinski concurred.
The decision was issued as an unpublished order, which may limit its use as precedent.