In Thai v. Triumvera 600 Naples Ct. Condo. Ass’n, 2020 IL App (1st) 192408, Plaintiffs, Matthew Thai, Tuyetha Dinh, and one of their four minor children (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed an amended complaint against Triumvera 600 Naples Court Condominium Association (“Association”) alleging various claims, including claims for violating the Illinois Human Rights Act (“IHRA”),775 ILCS 5, et seq. At issue in the case was the Plaintiffs’ claim that the condominium association violated the IHRA by filing a lawsuit against them in retaliation for having filed a discrimination claim against the association with the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”). During the proceedings before the trial court, the condominium association filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the plaintiffs’ claims under the IHRA, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court ruled that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the condominium association’s actions amounted to retaliation against Plaintiffs for filing a discrimination claim with the IDHR. The Court of Appeals ruled that summary judgment was improper and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Thai v. Triumvera 600 Naples Ct. Condo. Ass’n reinforces the importance of community associations being mindful not to engage in any actions against an owner that may be viewed as retaliatory in nature for filing a claim against the association with the IDHR.
Case Background
Plaintiff, Matthew Thai (“Thai”), was the owner of unit 308 (“Unit”) at the condominium and resided in the Unit with his wife, Tuyetha Dinh (“Dinh”), and his four minor children from 2014 until October 2017. In 2015, neighbors complained to the board about Thai’s children playing and making noise in the Unit. To reduce the noise, Thai installed thick foam padding in the Unit, where his children would play, and carpeting in the bedroom. Thai did not receive any noise complaints in 2016.
In January 2017, Jason Neuberger (“Neuberger”) became the board president. Neuberger was the owner of unit 208, which was directly below Thai’s unit. In its amended complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that from the time Neuberger became the board president until Plaintiffs moved out, Neuberger engaged in a pattern of harassing and disparate treatment against Plaintiffs, which included frequent pounding on Plaintiffs’ door and floor. In addition, at the January 10, 2017, board meeting, Plaintiffs’ children were referred to as “serial noise violators.” On January 25, 2017, the board issued a “warning letter” to Plaintiffs stating that “excessive and consistently disturbing noise” was coming from Plaintiffs’ Unit. Later that same month, the Association shut the water off in the building to clean the pipes. The plumbing work caused Plaintiffs’ Unit to flood and damaged Plaintiffs’ kitchen sink. The Association hired a plumbing contractor to repair the damage. However, without Plaintiffs’ consent, while performing the repair work, the Association’s plumbing contractor took pictures of Plaintiffs’ unit showing unwashed pots, pans, and dishes on Plaintiffs’ counter, as well as boxes piled up around the room. These pictures were provided to the board, resulting in the Association’s attorney sending a letter to the Plaintiffs referring to the pictures and demanding that the Plaintiffs’ Unit be cleaned and thereafter inspected by the Association. At the February 14, 2017, board meeting, the board stated that the “excessive debris” in Plaintiffs’ Unit, which was “documented by the plumber’s photos,” is a “potential DCFS issue.” After the February 14, 2017, board meeting, Plaintiffs received a “notification of a suspected child abuse and/or neglect” from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”). DCFS investigated Plaintiffs, and DCFS determined that the report was unfounded.
At the April 11, 2017, board meeting, the Board approved three $50.00 fines against Plaintiffs’ Unit for excessive noise, moving out in contravention of the rules and regulations, and failure to allow the Association to inspect the condition of the Unit. The condominium association’s rules and regulations required that, upon being fined, the unit owner receive written notice, as well as information on the hearing and appeal process. On April 12, 2017, Neuberger and the board’s secretary drafted a notice to Plaintiffs advising Plaintiffs that a hearing would take place on April 25, 2017. However, on April 20, 2017, Neuberger and the board’s secretary engaged in a text message exchange during which they expressed concern over whether the Plaintiffs had been properly served with notice of the hearing date. They agreed that if Plaintiffs did not appear at the April 25, 2017, hearing, the Board would reissue the notice and reschedule the hearing to a later date. Plaintiffs did not receive notice of the April 25, 2017, hearing, so they did not appear for the fine hearing.
On April 21, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a charge of discrimination against the condo association and its board members with the IDHR based on Plaintiffs’ national origin and familial status. The condominium association was notified of the Plaintiffs’ charge of discrimination on April 26, 2017. On May 9, 2017, the board voted to initiate its own lawsuit against Plaintiffs for violating the rules and regulations related to the assessed fines. On June 7, 2017, the condominium association filed its lawsuit against Plaintiffs. In August 2017, Plaintiffs filed this case against the condominium association and its board members, alleging that breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, invasion of privacy, national origin discrimination under the Act, familial status discrimination under the Act, and retaliation under the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A).
The Association filed a motion for summary judgment against the Plaintiffs, arguing that the Plaintiffs could not establish one of the elements of a prima facie case of retaliation, namely a causal link between the lawsuit the condominium association filed against the Plaintiffs and the filing of the Plaintiffs’ charge of discrimination with the IDHR. The trial court granted the condo association’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ claim for retaliation. In doing so, the trial court stated that the evidence “does not support a conclusion” that the Association’s lawsuit against Plaintiffs was filed as a retaliatory measure after Plaintiffs filed their IDHR complaint.” Plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s ruling.
The Illinois Court of Appeals ruled that an Issue of Fact exists as to whether the Condo Association Retaliated against the Owner for filing a Civil Rights Complaint
The issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred when it granted the condominium association’s motion for summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs’ claim for retaliation. Under 775 ILCS 5/6-101(A), ““it is a civil rights violation for a person, or for two or more persons to conspire, to * * * retaliate against a person because he or she has opposed that which he or she reasonably and in good faith believes to be unlawful discrimination * * * because he or she has * * * made a charge * * * under this Act.”
The Appellate Court identified the standard to establish a claim for retaliation as follows:
…a plaintiff can prove its case through either “direct evidence” or “the indirect method of proof.” For the indirect method, which is at issue in this case, the courts use the burden-shifting analysis articulated in McDonnell Douglas. The plaintiff must first produce enough evidence to establish a prima facie case. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the plaintiffs here must demonstrate that (1) they were engaged in a protected activity; (2) the defendants committed a material adverse act against them; and (3) a causal nexus existed between the protected activity and the adverse act. Id. Once the plaintiff has met this burden a presumption arises which, if not rebutted, could lead to a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 259-60, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). This presumption may be rebutted by the defendant articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Id. at 257, 101 S.Ct. 1089. Once such a reason is offered, the presumption drops from the case and the plaintiff “must have the opportunity to demonstrate that the proffered reason was not the true reason” for the defendant’s decision.
The Illinois Court of Appeals went on to state that when considering a claim of retaliation under the IHRA, to avoid the entry of summary judgment, “the plaintiff must present evidence raising an inference that the adverse action was motivated, at least in part, by an improper retaliatory motive.” “The plaintiff can do so by, among other things, pointing to evidence suggesting that the defendant’s proffered reason is pretextual and unworthy of credence.”
In this case, the Illinois Appellate Court found that when “viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the nonmoving party, in this case the plaintiffs, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence of pretext in the record to preclude the entry of summary judgment.” The Appellate Court focused on several factors, including the fact that the board never formally discussed commencing litigation against the Plaintiffs until May 9, 2017, which came after the condominium association received notice of the Plaintiffs’ charge of discrimination with the IDHR. The Appellate Court further stated as follows:
In sum, the evidence points to defendants seeking an amicable resolution to the issues with unit 308 in a neighborly way up and until the IDHR charge was filed. Multiple board members testified that they viewed the fines levied against unit 308 as a means to encourage plaintiffs to attend a board meeting, where they could discuss the issues and reach a resolution. Based on the evidence presented, we find that there is enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants’ legitimate nondiscriminatory basis for filing the chancery litigation was merely pretext.
The Illinois Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in the condominium association’s favor. As such, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Why This Case Matters for Condominium Associations and Common Interest Community Associations
Community associations must treat all members equally and fairly in accordance with their governing documents and consistently with state and federal laws. Community associations must not engage in any actions that may be deemed as retaliatory in nature. Particularly, community associations must be aware of the protection afforded to individuals under the IHRA, which includes the right to be free from retaliation for engaging in protected activity under the IHRA. To the extent that an Association engages in retaliatory conduct against one of its members for engaging in protected activity under the IHRA, the Association and its board members may be subject to a claim of retaliation, which could result in a monetary judgment being entered against them.
At Hirzel Law, PLC, we regularly advise and assist condominium associations and common interest community associations in enforcing their governing documents, while remaining compliant with state and federal laws, including the IHRA. If your condominium association or common interest community association would like assistance in this regard, please contact our office, as it may avoid a civil rights case from the Illinois Department of Human Rights, which can be costly for community associations to defend. As such, it is better to be proactive, and your community association should consult a qualified condominium attorney before issues arise.
