{ "id": 5577354, "name": "ARTHUR R. STROBECK, JR., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Strobeck v. Illinois Civil Service Commission", "decision_date": "1979-03-27", "docket_number": "No. 77-1628", "first_page": "772", "last_page": "779", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "70 Ill. App. 3d 772" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "129 N.E.2d 236", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "7 Ill. App. 2d 147", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5144222 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/7/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "286 N.E.2d 130", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 Ill. App. 3d 593", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2467189 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/6/0593-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.E.2d 102", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 Ill. App. 3d 690", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2891550 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/45/0690-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 N.E.2d 195", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Ill. App. 3d 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5639360 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/50/0060-01" ] }, { "cite": "376 N.E.2d 430", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ill. App. 3d 726", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3357882 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/59/0726-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 N.E.2d 513", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 Ill. 2d 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5408041 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/57/0547-01" ] }, { "cite": "504 F.2d 1189", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 109460 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/504/1189-01" ] }, { "cite": "397 U.S. 471", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12055070 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/397/0471-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 N.E.2d 903", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 Ill. 2d 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5809786 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/68/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 N.E.2d 316", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "11 Ill. App. 3d 582", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2935376 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/11/0582-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 S. Ct. 1997", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 L. Ed. 2d 481", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "421 U.S. 991", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 541034, 541674, 541613, 541357, 541967, 541939, 541784, 541885 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/421/0991-07", "/us/421/0991-02", "/us/421/0991-04", "/us/421/0991-01", "/us/421/0991-05", "/us/421/0991-03", "/us/421/0991-08", "/us/421/0991-06" ] }, { "cite": "482 F.2d 1333", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1322876 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/482/1333-01" ] }, { "cite": "367 N.E.2d 778", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 Ill. App. 3d 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3387108 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/52/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 S. Ct. 1463", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 L. Ed. 2d 502", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "435 U.S. 911", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 2756, 3044, 2375, 2488, 2266, 2875 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/435/0911-01", "/us/435/0911-03", "/us/435/0911-06", "/us/435/0911-05", "/us/435/0911-04", "/us/435/0911-02" ] }, { "cite": "361 N.E.2d 782", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "47 Ill. App. 3d 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3367555 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/47/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 N.E.2d 316", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "11 Ill. App. 3d 582", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2935376 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "588-89" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/11/0582-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 812, "char_count": 18815, "ocr_confidence": 0.894, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.481820635016797e-07, "percentile": 0.6612431844482053 }, "sha256": "7d6e97a8f9f6e666854b5d33ab436b21dd358ffd551dea8f9aeeac2b0571be0a", "simhash": "1:f50639ddb95bac8b", "word_count": 2969 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:20.751997+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ARTHUR R. STROBECK, JR., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STAMOS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal arises from an administrative review by the circuit court of Cook County, Law Division, of proceedings conducted by defendant Illinois Civil Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). Plaintiff, Arthur R. Strobeck, Jr., an employee of defendant, Illinois Department of Labor, had been discharged from employment by the Commission due to Strobeck\u2019s unauthorized absence from work. The circuit court of Cook County reversed the decision of the Commission and ordered Strobeck reinstated to his former position without loss of compensation or seniority. The circuit court also denied defendants\u2019 petition for rehearing and stayed the enforcement of its reversal order. It is from these orders that defendants appeal.\nPlaintiff had been a certified employee of the Department of Labor holding the position of Employment Security Manpower Representative II. Plaintiff was employed in the Department\u2019s Evanston office.\nIn June of 1976, plaintiff requested and received approval for a vacation leave which was to commence July 12,1976, and continue until July 19, 1976. At approximately 4:30 p.m. on July 6, 1976, plaintiff\u2019s supervisor, Joan Roberts, received a communication concerning all leaves. Roberts, after receiving the communication, announced that all leaves had been rescinded by the Department. The contents of the announcement were subsequently reduced to a memorandum, which was duplicated and distributed to office personnel.\nPlaintiff failed to appear at his office on July 7, 8 and 9 and did not report to work during his vacation leave. Pursuant to these absences the Department sought to discharge plaintiff from employment. The discharge was based upon the following charges:\n1. Unauthorized absence from 7-7-76 to 7-13-76, in violation of Rule 3 \u2014 350, Department of Personnel, and failure to provide justifiable reason for the absence when given an opportunity to do so before the Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security.\n2. Participation in an illegal work stoppage at the Illinois Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security from 7-7-76 to 7-13-76.\n3. Instigation of an illegal work stoppage at the Illinois Eepartment of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security from 7-7-76 to 7-13-76.\nA hearing on these charges was held before the Commission. Robert Gammie, Joan Roberts, Lorraine De Meulenaere, Paul Kuick, Emerson Jackson, Sylvia Swidler, Irving Senn, John Dooley, Lois Johnson, Arthur White, Vitian Morris, Johanna Ellison, Margaret Hershberger and Robert Duback testified at the hearing. Plaintiff testified in his own behalf.\nRobert Gammie testified that he was the manager of the office which employed plaintiff. Gammie was aware of plaintiff\u2019s membership in the local union (1006) and had discussed union activities with plaintiff. He stated that plaintiff carried on union conversations on the telephone and handed out union literature in the office.\nGammie authorized plaintiff\u2019s six-day vacation leave. Gammie indicated that he never informed plaintiff that the Department rescinded all leaves.\nGammie also stated that plaintiff was absent from work commencing July 7, 1976, due to a labor dispute. Gammie indicated that he never saw plaintiff picket the Evanston office.\nJoan Roberts testified that Mr. Gammie was her immediate supervisor at the Evanston office. She was plaintiff\u2019s immediate supervisor and a member of local union 1006. Roberts further indicated that when plaintiff informed her that a strike was forthcoming, this was the first notification of the strike received by her.\nRoberts stated that on July 6,1976, she announced to the office that all approved leaves had to be \u201cresubmitted\u201d and that sick leaves had to be accompanied by a physician\u2019s statement upon return to work. She announced that these policies took immediate effect. Roberts stated that she was not certain if plaintiff was at his desk at the time of the announcement.\nLorraine De Meulenaere testified that she was secretary to Mr. Gammie at the Evanston office. She was present in the office on July 6, 1976, when Joan Roberts announced that all leaves had been rescinded. She further testified that plaintiff was present at the time of the announcement.\nDe Meulenaere testified that she typed a memorandum containing the information pertaining to leaves, made copies and placed one before plaintiff who was at his desk.\nPaul Kuick testified that he was an employee of the Illinois State Employment Service in the Montrose Avenue office. Kuick was a union member and participated in a strike on July 12, 1976.\nKuick stated that he observed plaintiff carrying a picket sign at the Montrose Avenue office. He recalled plaintiff speaking to one employee about the strike. Kuick also recalled that plaintiff distributed some literature.\nEmerson Jackson testified that he is the manager of the Montrose Avenue Department of Labor office. On July 12, 1976, he observed plaintiff carrying a picket sign. The sign stated \u201cLocal 1006 on Strike.\u201d\nSylvia Swidler testified that she is in charge of personnel planning for the Illinois Bureau of Employment Security. On days between July 7 and July 13, 1976, she observed plaintiff outside the main office of the Bureau of Employment Security at 910 South Michigan Avenue. Plaintiff was talking into a \u201chorn.\u201d\nIrving Senn testified that he is employed at the Evanston office of the Illinois Bureau of Employment Security. He testified as to his familiarity with plaintiff. Senn is, as is plaintiff, a member of Local 1006.\nOn July 6, 1976, Senn heard the announcement by Joan Roberts concerning rescission of leaves. Senn remembered that, at the time of the announcement, Roberts and De Meulenaere were present in the office.\nSenn also indicated that plaintiff was a union steward. Plaintiff informed Senn of the union\u2019s strike vote and distributed literature concerning that vote to Senn.\nJohn Dooley testified that he is an employment representative at the Evanston office. He sat next to plaintiff in the office. Dooley believed that plaintiff was present in the office on July 6,1976, at 4:30 p.m., but he was not certain that plaintiff was at his desk.\nLois Johnson testified that she is employed at the Evanston office of the Department of Labor. Johnson was familiar with plaintiff. Johnson stated that she is a member of Local 1006.\nJohnson was present in the office on July 6,1976, when Joan Roberts announced that leaves would be rescinded. Johnson remembered plaintiff\u2019s presence that day although Johnson did not know of plaintiff\u2019s whereabouts at the time of the announcement.\nJohnson indicated that plaintiff had been acting as union steward. Plaintiff distributed union literature in the office. Johnson spoke with plaintiff prior to the strike but she stated that the conversation was \u201cnothing of consequence.\u201d\nArthur White testified that he is the assistant regional manager for Metro Region Unemployment Insurance (Bureau of Employment Security, State of Illinois). He stated that he kept records pertaining to daily absenteeism and increased or decreased productivity. Each local manager supplied White with information concerning the numbers of (1) employees seen picketing, (2) employees on authorized leave, (3) employees absent and (4) employees at work.\nVitian Morris testified that she is employed by the Illinois Bureau of Employment Security. She is a member of Local 1006 and was absent from work July 7, 1976, due to the strike. She stated that after the strike she was called back to work but 33 other strikers were not.\nJohanna Ellison testified that she is a research analyst for the Department of Labor, a member of Local 1006 and editor of the union newspaper. Her testimony referred to 15 or 20 union leaflets concerning the strike. Ellison stated that plaintiff did not write or distribute the leaflets. Ellison also indicated that she was recalled to work subsequent to the termination of the work stoppage.\nMargaret Hershberger, presently unemployed, testified that she had been employed at the Division of Unemployment, 910 S. Michigan Avenue. She is presently a member of Local 1006 and the recording secretary thereof.\nHershberger stated that plaintiff and Robert Duback were co-stewards in the Evanston office. She indicated that Duback was reinstated and transferred after the strike. She also noted that of 33 discharged strikers the \u201cmajority or more than 23 are probably stewards or other elected officers of the local.\u201d\nRobert Duback testified that he is an unemployment adjudicator for the Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment Insurance Office. Plaintiff held the other steward position on the Employment Security side of the office. Duback distributed strike literature in the Evanston office. Duback stated that he participated in the strike, was discharged and subsequently recalled to work.\nDuback indicated that on July 6, 1976, he spoke with plaintiff in Duback\u2019s office between 4:30-5 p.m. Duback\u2019s office was in the rear of the building. Duback testified that prior to leaving the office on that day he was unaware that the Department of Labor had rescinded all leaves.\nPlaintiff, Arthur Strobeck, also testified before the Commission. He stated that he was co-steward of Local 1006, Evanston office. In this capacity plaintiff handled grievances, organized the union membership and informed the membership of local union activities.\nStrobeck indicated that a strike vote was taken one week prior to the commencement of the strike. Strike information was distributed by Strobeck within the Evanston office.\nStrobeck stated that he was present at the Evanston office on July 6, 1976, but was unaware of any announcement by Joan Roberts. Strobeck was absent from work July 7, 8 and 9 due to his participation in the work stoppage. He indicated that with respect to the strike he had no decision-making authority other than his single vote. Strobeck did not recall encouraging any employees to honor the picket line and participate in the work stoppage.\nPursuant to this hearing the hearing officer recommended a suspension. The Commission, however, found that plaintiff\u2019s participation in a work stoppage constituted a \u201cdischargeable offense.\u201d Consequently, the Commission found that plaintiff illegally withheld his services from public employment and terminated plaintiff\u2019s employment.\nOn December 16, 1976, plaintiff filed, in the circuit court of Cook County, a complaint for administrative review. Plaintiff, through this pleading, prayed that the record of proceedings before the Commission be reviewed and the decision of the Commission reversed.\nA hearing commenced in the circuit court of Cook County, Law Division, on August 15, 1977. At the termination of the hearing the court entered an order reversing the decision of the Commission and reinstating plaintiff to his former position without any loss in compensation or seniority.\nOn August 19, 1977, defendants filed a motion in circuit court for a stay of that court\u2019s August 15, 1977, order. Also, on August 19, 1977, defendants filed a petition for rehearing. The circuit court, through its order of August 23,1977, denied the petition for rehearing and granted a stay of the August 15,1977, order pending appeal. It is from the orders of August 15, 1977, and August 23, 1977, that defendants appeal.\nWe note at the outset of our analysis that the evidence adduced at the administrative level along with the agency\u2019s findings of fact on that evidence are prima facie true and correct. (Epstein v. Civil Service Com. (1977), 47 Ill. App. 3d 81, 361 N.E.2d 782, appeal dismissed (1978), 435 U.S. 911, 55 L. Ed. 2d 502, 98 S. Ct. 1463.) The Commission\u2019s findings of fact and gravity can be set aside on review only if contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Hardaway v. Civil Service Com. (1977), 52 Ill. App. 3d 494, 367 N.E.2d 778; Epstein v. Civil Service Com.\nPlaintiff contends that his discharge by the Department of Labor denied him equal protection of law. This contention is based upon the fact that differing punishments were imposed upon striking employees. Some of the employee-participants in the work stoppage were merely suspended and, subsequently, recalled to work. Other employees, including plaintiff, were discharged. The question presented for our resolution is whether such differential treatment of employees who had participated in the work stoppage can withstand and satisfy constitutional scrutiny. We believe this question should be answered in the affirmative.\nWe first note that the right to public employment is not fundamental in an equal protection context. (Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v. Members of Bridgeport Civil Service Com. (2d Cir. 1973), 482 F.2d 1333, cert, denied (1975), 421 U.S. 991, 44 L. Ed. 2d 481, 95 S. Ct. 1997. See Dendor v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1973), 11 Ill. App. 3d 582, 297 N.E.2d 316 (indicating that public employee does not have a constitutional right to such employment).) Furthermore, plaintiff\u2019s claim does not involve the consideration of any suspect classifications. Therefore, we will apply the \u201crational basis\u201d test to determine if defendants\u2019 actions denied plaintiff the equal protection of law. This test compels us to determine whether the particular administrative classification is rationally designed to further a legitimate State purpose. (See People ex rel. Tucker v. Kotsos (1977), 68 Ill. 2d 88, 368 N.E.2d 903.) If the classification has some reasonable basis it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality. Dandridge v. Williams (1970), 397 U.S. 471, 25 L. Ed. 2d 491, 90 S. Ct. 1153.\nDefendants must retain broad discretion in attempting to resolve problems relating to public employees. (Compare Herzbrun v. Milwaukee County (7th Cir. 1974), 504 F.2d 1189.) Problems of discipline cannot be divorced from any other matters requiring administrative action by defendants. Although all participants in the work stoppage were subject to discharge we presume that such mass discharge would have debilitated the Department of Labor work force. Consequently, in its discretion, the Department did not attempt to terminate the employment of all the participants in the work stoppage. The strike settlement contained in the record on appeal reveals that the union was aware of the Department\u2019s anticipated course of conduct regarding the strikers. The maintenance of a work force is a legitimate State purpose and the reinstatement of various suspended employees is rationally related thereto.\nConsequendy, we find plaintiff\u2019s equal protection claim without merit. The discharge of plaintiff, in contrast with the suspensions of others, did not deny plaintiff equal protection of law. Herzbrun v. Milwaukee County (7th Cir. 1974), 504 F.2d 1189.\nWe believe that the determination of the following issue is dispositive of this appeal: Whether plaintiff was properly discharged for his participation in a work stoppage? We further believe that the discharge was appropriate.\nA review of various decisions of the courts of this State reflects that public employees have no protected right to engage in a strike. (City of Pana v. Crowe (1974), 57 Ill. 2d 547, 316 N.E.2d 513; Board of Education v. Danville Education Association (1978), 59 Ill. App. 3d 726, 376 N.E.2d 430; Board of Education v. Parkhill (1977), 50 Ill. App. 3d 60, 365 N.E.2d 195; Littrell v. Board of Education (1977), 45 Ill. App. 3d 690, 360 N.E.2d 102; Fletcher v. Civil Service Com. (1972), 6 Ill. App. 3d 593, 286 N.E.2d 130.) The underlying policy behind the rule is that government functions may not be impeded or obstructed. Board of Education v. Danville Education Association (1978), 59 Ill. App. 3d 726, 376 N.E.2d 430.\nThe Commission determined that unauthorized absence from employment due to participation in a work stoppage was cause for discharge. We realize that this is a harsh sanction. We also note that the Commission, by discharging plaintiff, declined to adopt the disposition recommended by the hearing officer. Nevertheless, we cannot assume the function of a super-commission. The Commission is better able to determine the effect that plaintiff\u2019s conduct will have upon plaintiff\u2019s employer. See Epstein v. Civil Service Com. (1977), 47 Ill. App. 3d 81, 361 N.E.2d 782; Nolting v. Civil Service Com. (1955), 7 Ill. App. 2d 147, 129 N.E.2d 236.\nWe are satisfied that plaintiff was granted a fair and proper hearing before the Commission. Furthermore, we are satisfied that the findings of the Commission are not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we find that the circuit court erred in reversing the decision reached by the Commission. Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is reversed and the finding of the Commission is affirmed.\nReversed.\nDOWNING, J., concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STAMOS" }, { "text": "Mr. JUSTICE PERLIN,\ndissenting:\nI respectfully dissent from the opinion of my colleagues because I believe the dismissal ordered by the Commission in this instance constitutes an abuse of discretion. It is true that a public employee does not have a constitutional right to public employment; however, such employee cannot be barred or removed from that employment arbitrarily or in disregard of his or her constitutional rights. (Dendor v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners (1st Dist. 1973), 11 Ill. App. 3d 582, 588-89, 297 N.E.2d 316.) Although it would be impractical entirely to deprive the Commission of the power to exercise discretion in solving disciplinary problems and of the ability to impose a particular sanction depending upon the severity of the violation, we should not permit the unbridled application of discretion to foster the potential of discrimination. I cannot agree with the rationale of the Commission in its attempt to justify the selective dismissal on the basis that the Department could not function if all of the guilty persons were to be equally punished. To select for dismissal a few of approximately 300 employees who had engaged in the same joint action, while retaining the others, subverts the concept of \u201cequal justice under the law\u201d and could give rise to adverse social effects. I do not believe that discrimination should be encouraged in the guise of an exercise of discretion. Therefore, I would reverse the decision of the . Commission.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Mr. JUSTICE PERLIN," } ], "attorneys": [ "William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Chicago, for appellants.", "Ellis E. Reid, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ARTHUR R. STROBECK, JR., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 77-1628\nOpinion filed March 27, 1979.\nRehearing denied May 1, 1979.\nWilliam J. Scott, Attorney General, of Chicago, for appellants.\nEllis E. Reid, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0772-01", "first_page_order": 794, "last_page_order": 801 }