Rippl v. Beilin et al
Filing
36
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable James B. Zagel on 7/29/2014. (ep, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
HEATHER A. RIPPL,
Plaintiff,
No. 14 CV 1392
Judge James B. Zagel
v.
MARNIE J. BEILIN and PETER
O’ROURKE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On February 24, 2014, Plaintiff Heather A. Rippl (“Plaintiff”) filed a five-count
complaint against Defendants Marnie J. Beilin and Peter O’Rourke (“Defendants”) alleging
violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) (Count I) and the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA)
(Count II), breach of contract (Count III), wrongful eviction (Count IV), and intentional and/or
negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count V). Defendant Beilin moved to dismiss Counts
II, III, IV, and V of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Defendant O’Rourke joins Beilin’s motion to dismiss,
while reserving his right to make additional arguments in support of dismissal.
Defendants argue that Count II must be dismissed because the IHRA provides the
exclusive remedies for violation of this Act and that Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative
remedies in this case as required by the IHRA. Defendants subsequently seek to dismiss Counts
III, IV, and V, claims they argue are “inextricably linked” to the same operative facts that form
the basis of the discrimination claim alleged in Count II, as preempted by the IHRA.
Defendants’ failure to consider the January 1, 2008 amendment to the IHRA, which
created limited exceptions to the Illinois Human Rights Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction
1
over certain claims—particularly housing claims—is fatal to their argument. The 2008
Amendment to the IHRA permits aggrieved parties of alleged housing violations to enforce their
rights under the IHRA by filing a civil action, regardless of whether a charge has been filed with
the Illinois Department of Human Rights. 775 ILCS 5/10-102. Plaintiff neither alleges that she
exhausted her administrative remedies under the IHRA nor does she need to under 775 ILCS
5/10-102. Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count II is denied. Consequently, Defendants’
argument that Plaintiff’s state law tort claims must be dismissed because they are preempted by
the IHRA also fails.
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts II, III, IV, and V is denied.
ENTER:
James B. Zagel
United States District Judge
DATE: July 29, 2014
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?