In a recent ruling, the Appellate Court of Illinois vacated a default judgment against the Illinois Department of Human Services (Department) in a case involving allegations of disability discrimination. The court's decision allows the Department another chance to respond to the claims made by Phillip Kenny, who argued that the Department failed to accommodate his disability during the COVID-19 pandemic. This ruling could have significant implications for how disability discrimination cases are handled in Illinois.
The case, Kenny v. Illinois Department of Human Services (Docket No. 3-25-0654), centers around Kenny's claim that the Department violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by not allowing him to work from home despite his severely compromised immune system. Kenny, who represented himself in court, was awarded a default judgment after the Department failed to appear at multiple court hearings. The court's ruling to vacate the judgment means that the Department can now present its case and potentially contest the allegations against it.
Background
Phillip Kenny filed his civil complaint on January 15, 2025, claiming that the Department did not accommodate his disability when it denied his request to work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Kenny stated that this refusal forced him to exhaust his sick leave and retire early. He provided evidence, including a charge of discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and a letter from the Department of Justice, which indicated that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Department had discriminated against him.
During the initial case management hearing on May 5, 2025, Kenny appeared, but the Department did not. The court later issued an alias summons to the Department's Springfield address after determining that Kenny had attempted to serve the Department incorrectly. Following a series of hearings where the Department again failed to appear, the court entered a default judgment in favor of Kenny on July 22, 2025, granting him $180,000 in damages.
The Ruling
The Department subsequently filed a motion to vacate the default judgment on August 7, 2025, arguing that the trial court had applied the wrong legal standard in denying its motion. The Department contended that it had not received adequate notice of the July 22 hearing and that the court's ruling was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law regarding default judgments.
The Appellate Court ruled that the trial court had indeed applied the incorrect legal standard. The court stated, “The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in denying the Department’s motion to vacate the default judgment.” The ruling emphasized that the trial court should have considered the Department's motion under section 2-1301(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for the setting aside of default judgments under less stringent criteria than section 2-1401, which applies to final judgments.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving default judgments, particularly those related to disability discrimination. The court's decision reinforces the idea that parties should have the opportunity to present their cases, especially when procedural missteps occur. The ruling also highlights the importance of proper service and notice in legal proceedings.
By vacating the default judgment, the court allows the Department to contest the allegations made by Kenny. This could potentially lead to a different outcome if the Department is able to present a meritorious defense. The ruling may also influence how other courts handle similar cases, particularly in ensuring that defendants have a fair chance to respond to allegations against them.
What's Next
The case has been remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, where the Department will have the opportunity to present its defense against Kenny's claims. The court's ruling does not prevent Kenny from pursuing his allegations; rather, it ensures that both parties can fully engage in the legal process. Details regarding any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.