Legal Opinion · Dissent

Weatherly v. ILLINOIS HUMAN RIGHTS COM'N

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided April 16, 2003No. 1-01-2255Published

1DissentJustice Hall

I respectfully dissent. Under section 2520.360(a) of the Department rules, “[a] charge may be amended to cure technical defects or to set forth additional facts or allegations related to the subject matter of the original charge, and such amendments shall relate back to the original fifing date.” 56 Ill. Adm. Code § 2520.360(a) (eff. November 4, 1994). The majority found that the amended retaliation charge did not relate back to the timely filed discrimination charge because the retaliation charge alleged that petitioner was fired in retaliation for complaining to an ITT director that she was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Faulkner-King v. Department of Human RightsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1992
  2. Lee v. Human Rights CommissionAppellate Court of Illinois · 1984
  3. Gonzalez v. Human Rights CommissionAppellate Court of Illinois · 1989
  4. Pace v. Human Rights CommissionAppellate Court of Illinois · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API