jurisdiction is primary and is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Review Law, and thus when exercised supersedes any ⁄8(a) jurisdiction of this court over HRA claims). Whether or not the Human Rights Commission satisfies the federal courts call for an Illinois remedy for ADA claims against the State of Illinois, under current law this court is not part of that debate. In the absence of a supporting statutory grant of jurisdiction to this court over federal ADA claims, we are required to reject this Claimant s ADA claim for want of subject matter jurisdiction, as well as for the reason of primary county financial responsibility for the Clerk s liabilities, discussed ante. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Count I is dismissed with prejudice for want of subject matter jurisdiction; and 2. Counts II and III of this claim are dismissed without prejudice, subject to refiling after exhaustion of claimant s remedies against the Clerk and Cook County.
Case summary
The claimant brought an ADA claim against the State of Illinois. The court dismissed Count I with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed Counts II and III without prejudice for failure to exhaust remedies against the Clerk and Cook County.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Count I is dismissed with prejudice for want of subject matter jurisdiction; and 2. Counts II and III of this claim are dismissed without prejudice, subject to refiling after exhaustion of claimant s remedies against the Clerk and Cook County.