Court revives ADA claim after state agency’s confusing charge process

After her termination, Ballard turned to the Illinois Department of Human Rights. On August 23, 2018, she submitted a Complainant Information Sheet – the only way the IDHR allows individuals to initiate the charge process. That form named Ameren, described her allegations, and was filed 178 days after her termination, well within the ADA’s 300-day filing window. 

The problem was that the IDHR does not treat that form as a formal charge. The agency itself drafts the charge based on the information provided, and in Ballard’s case, it did not finalize that document until September 2019 – more than 550 days after her termination and far beyond the federal deadline. The substance of the formal charge was the same as the original intake form. 

The district court dismissed the case, finding that Ballard had not filed a valid charge within 300 days. The Seventh Circuit agreed that the intake form does not satisfy the federal requirement, following its own 2016 precedent. The court noted that the form itself states in its instructions that it is not a charge. 

But the appeals court did not stop there. It found that the IDHR’s communications to Ballard were confusing and potentially misleading. The agency told her that no further action was required on her part, referred to her filing as a charge in multiple letters, and confirmed the filing date as the date of her intake form. The court observed that these statements may have been accurate under Illinois law but were misleading as to her federal obligations – and the agency never made that distinction clear. 

The court found this significant because equitable tolling can apply when a government agency misleads a complainant, particularly one without legal representation. Ballard was pro se throughout most of the process. The Seventh Circuit sent the case back so the district court can examine whether Ballard was reasonably misled and whether she acted promptly once she understood the situation.