{
  "id": 5575131,
  "name": "MATTHEW NORVILLE, SR., Petitioner, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS et al., Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "Norville v. Department of Human Rights",
  "decision_date": "2003-07-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 2\u201402\u20140280",
  "first_page": "260",
  "last_page": "263",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "341 Ill. App. 3d 260"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "63 Fed. Reg. 70256",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Fed. Reg.",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "70257"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 U.S.C. \u00a7 3607",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(b)(1)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 U.S.C. \u00a7 3601",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "et seq."
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "514 U.S. 725",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1339193
      ],
      "weight": 9,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/514/0725-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "327 Ill. App. 3d 293",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        79410
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "295"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/327/0293-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 464,
    "char_count": 7708,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.761,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5828155114230504e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28731501334633797
    },
    "sha256": "6b23df0e437d51dc314484f36a67ac8845e57abb0c9da1e5d15216d2dbb672ab",
    "simhash": "1:dbe2b1fa7b30be8e",
    "word_count": 1228
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:38:13.673521+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MATTHEW NORVILLE, SR., Petitioner, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS et al., Respondents."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE KAPALA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPro se petitioner, Matthew Norville, Sr., filed a charge of familial status discrimination (775 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 101 et seq. (West 2000)) against respondent Franciscan Ministries, Inc. (Franciscan Ministries), alleging that Franciscan Ministries refused to rent a three-bedroom apartment to him because of the number of children he and his wife had who were under 18 years old. Respondent Illinois Department of Human Rights (Department) initially dismissed the charge for lack of substantial evidence. On review, the chief legal counsel (CLC) for the Department vacated the dismissal and reinstated the charge \u201cfor further work as necessary and other proceedings by the Department.\u201d The Department again dismissed the charge for lack of substantial evidence, and on review, the CLC sustained the dismissal, finding that \u201c[t]here is no evidence that Respondent [Franciscan Ministries] refused to rent to Complainant because of Complainant\u2019s familial status.\u201d Petitioner timely appealed from this order.\nFACTS\nPetitioner and his wife had eight children when he commenced proceedings against Franciscan Ministries. During the pendency of the proceedings, his wife gave birth to their ninth child. Petitioner\u2019s family thus consisted of 11 people, with 8 of the 9 children being under the age of 18. Franciscan Ministries owned the Assisi Homes Batavia Apartments, Inc., a 290-unit apartment complex in the City of Batavia, in Kane County. The Department\u2019s fact investigation revealed the following. In or about April 2000, petitioner met with a representative of Franciscan Ministries in Wheaton. Petitioner explained that he and his family had recently been evicted from their previous housing and that his family consisted of his wife and eight children. The housing agent replied that the largest apartment that might become available was a three-bedroom unit. The agent further stated that the three-bedroom apartment was not large enough to accommodate 10 people. When petitioner told the agent he believed his family could fit into the unit, the agent responded that it was not a matter of fitting into the apartment; the concern was Franciscan Ministries\u2019 policy limiting the number of persons who occupied a dwelling.\nThe Department verified that the occupancy standard for the three-bedroom apartments was seven individuals. The site occupancy standards documented a total of 290 units, 29 of which were 3-bedroom units. Only 2 of those 3-bedroom units had no children; 7 had 2 children; 11 had 3 children; and 3 had 5 children. Overall, approximately 90% of all the units in the complex were occupied by families with children. The Department also learned that Franciscan Ministries received federal assistance and that the federal regulations required Franciscan Ministries to meet federal housing guidelines, which included at least one bedroom or sleeping room of appropriate size for each two persons. The physical inspection of the three-bedroom units confirmed that one bedroom was 91 square feet, the second was 108 square feet, and the third was 144 square feet. The entire area of a three-bedroom unit totaled 1,082 square feet. Each had one bathroom and no other area that could be converted for use as extra sleeping space. The Department also verified that neither the City of Batavia nor Kane County had occupancy ordinances.\nDISCUSSION\nIn this appeal, petitioner challenges Franciscan Ministries\u2019 right to establish occupancy limits in the absence of governmental regulation. It is petitioner\u2019s belief that only a unit of government may promulgate occupancy limits.\nThe CLC\u2019s decision to sustain a dismissal of a human rights violation charge will not be disturbed unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Graves v. Chief Legal Counsel of the Department of Human Rights, 327 Ill. App. 3d 293, 295 (2002).\nSection 3 \u2014 102(A) of the Illinois Human Rights Act (Act) (775 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 102(A) (West 2000)) makes it a civil rights violation for an owner or other person engaging in a real estate transaction to refuse to engage in the transaction because of familial status. Section 3 \u2014 101(E) of the Act defines familial status as one or more individuals, who have not attained the age of 18 years, being domiciled with a parent having legal custody of such individuals. 775 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 101(E) (West 2000). Section 3 \u2014 106(D) of the Act provides an exemption for \u201cReasonable local, State, or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling.\u201d 775 ILCS 5/3 \u2014 106(D) (West 2000). Petitioner misconstrues this provision to exclude a private owner\u2019s right to limit occupancy. He relies on City of Edmonds v. Oxford House, Inc., 514 U.S. 725, 735 n.9, 131 L. Ed. 2d 801, 811 n.9, 115 S. Ct. 1776, 1782 n.9 (1995), where the United States Supreme Court interpreted the federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. \u00a7 3601 et seq. (2000)). The Illinois Act is similar to the federal Fair Housing Act. The federal statute exempts from the Fair Housing Act\u2019s scrutiny \u201c[a]ny reasonable local, State, or Federal restrictions regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling.\u201d 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 3607(b)(1) (2000)). Petitioner emphasizes the following language from footnote 9 of the Edmonds opinion, which states: \u201cSection 3607(b)(1) makes it plain that, pursuant to local prescriptions on maximum occupancy, landlords legitimately may refuse to stuff large families into small quarters.\u201d Edmonds, 514 U.S. at 735 n.9, 131 L. Ed. 2d at 811 n.9, 115 S. Ct. at 1782 n.9. Petitioner reasons that this language excludes a landlord\u2019s right to regulate occupancy in the absence of a \u201clocal prescription\u201d; however, in the same footnote, the Supreme Court pointed out that the exemption was adopted because of Congress\u2019s fear that landlords would be forced to allow large families to crowd into small housing units. Edmonds, 514 U.S. at 735 n.9, 131 L. Ed. 2d at 811 n.9, 115 S. Ct. at 1782 n.9. Indeed, in enforcing the Fair Housing Act, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has stated, \u201c[t]here is no basis to conclude that Congress intended that an owner or manager of dwellings would be unable to restrict the number of occupants who could reside in a dwelling.\u201d Department of Housing and Urban Development Fair Housing Enforcement-Occupancy Standards Notice of Statement of Policy, 63 Fed. Reg. 70256, 70257 (1998). We see no reason to depart from the reasoning in Edmonds. In light of the foregoing, we are not persuaded that our legislature intended to curtail a private landlord\u2019s right to restrict, independently of familial status, the number of occupants in a dwelling.\nIn our case, the evidence clearly shows that Franciscan Ministries was motivated by its occupancy restriction of seven persons to a three-bedroom unit. Therefore, we cannot say that the CLC\u2019s finding that Franciscan Ministries was not motivated by familial status discrimination was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the decision.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the CLC dismissing petitioner\u2019s charge of familial status discrimination.\nAffirmed.\nBOWMAN and BYRNE, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE KAPALA"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Matthew Norville, Sr., of Batavia, petitioner pro se.",
      "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Carl J. Elitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for respondent Department of Human Rights.",
      "Daniel A. Kaufman and Sarah A. Bible, both of Michael, Best & Friedrich, L.L.C. of Chicago, for respondent Franciscan Ministries, Inc."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MATTHEW NORVILLE, SR., Petitioner, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS et al., Respondents.\nSecond District\nNo. 2 \u2014 02\u20140280\nOpinion filed July 7, 2003.\nMatthew Norville, Sr., of Batavia, petitioner pro se.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Carl J. Elitz, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for respondent Department of Human Rights.\nDaniel A. Kaufman and Sarah A. Bible, both of Michael, Best & Friedrich, L.L.C. of Chicago, for respondent Franciscan Ministries, Inc."
  },
  "file_name": "0260-01",
  "first_page_order": 278,
  "last_page_order": 281
}