{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/audio/106512/?format=json","id":106512,"absolute_url":"/audio/106512/edwards-v-illinois-human-rights-commn/","panel":[],"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/74834699/?format=json","date_created":"2026-09-22T14:42:43.080847-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T14:51:28.550546-07:00","source":"C","case_name_short":"Edwards","case_name":"Edwards v. Illinois Human Rights Comm'n","case_name_full":"","judges":"","sha1":"91a8d6c5f66867910b312f4e997417e906982d23","download_url":"https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/66267e2b-b5c2-4ad5-a1bb-fdcb687d22f0/5-25-0278%20Edwards%20v.%20IL%20Human%20Rights%20Commn.mp3","local_path_mp3":"mp3/2026/09/22/edwards_v._illinois_human_rights_commn_cl.mp3","local_path_original_file":"mp3/2026/09/22/edwards_v._illinois_human_rights_commn.mp3","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"duration":1992,"processing_complete":true,"date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"stt_status":1,"stt_source":1,"stt_transcript":"So our next case is 05-25-0278 Edwards v. Illinois Human Rights Commission. I've got Mr. Edwards via Zoom and I've got Mr. Tillman here. Obviously with Mr. Edwards being via Zoom we'll work with everybody to make sure everybody can hear and what not. We'll be patient with that. Hopefully we won't run into any issues. Can you hear me okay Mr. Edwards? I can hear you. I'm just going to turn the volume off so I can hear you. We can hear you. Okay. Hopefully we'll get meeting. So Mr. Edwards are you ready to proceed? We can hear you.       So I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your master equivalence. Mr. Edwards also testified that he was not privy to any other documents beyond the interview materials. And Mr. Payton who was also one of the interviewees could not recall taking the application of the candidate into the interview. The process effectively flattened different objectives of credentials into the same education and training score. And that produced a margin of only .300 and then Payton swore to, you know, leave the regiment in Ms. Cutler for the job of the case supervisor. Ms. Taylor, who actually did the job to Ms. Cutler, did not testify. The respondents identified her approving mother based on the high score of the candidate, but it does not identify any independent comparative review by Taylor of the candidate's degrees, certification, application, or experience. The scores were therefore the, the scores was the product of the challenge process. There was not independent proof that the process, of the process was wrongly. The commission required, it was required to test Ida's explanation against the whole circumstantial record. My client, he's asked his court to reverse an interjection on the sex discrimination claim or an alternative to dedicate and revamp for the correct pretext analyst. The stage two, you know, of Michael's initial brief observed the argument that Ida failed to provide competent evidence tied his exerted non-discriminatory reasoning to the action decision-making process. They have heard of Mr. Taylor and Mrs. Schwartz, who were the interviews and the scores, and were also the ones who recommended Ms. Cutler. The respondents identified Ms. Taylor as the formal approving official, but as I mentioned before, they did not call her as a witness. And she approved, and she approved Cutler for the position because Cutler had the highest overall score. The form that she knew does not contain testimony explaining what Cutler had considered. But she compared the candidates, or how she compared the candidates, or whether she independently reviewed their qualifications. You know, Michael's qualifications were substantially superior to those of Cutler, and that's based on the fact that he had a complete master's degree, which was contemplated by the post dean, the job post dean. He had professional qualifications that were directly related to the clinical rehabilitation work, and had additional relevant experience. As I mentioned, the majorship commander, he had substantial eye-dog experience and prior CSS service. Cutler had some relevant supervising and temporary CSS experience, but she did not have a master's degree. And she had no comparable identifiable professional certifications. So that's just what I'm pointing at, what Ms. Cutler said. Mr. Edwards, can you hear me? Yes, sir. If I may interrupt for just a quick question, is it your position that Ms. Cutler did not meet the minimum requirements set forth in the job posting, or is it your position that your client's qualifications were superior to Cutler's? You know, most of your donors, she did not, the posting required a master's degree. She did not have that. You know, it was her position that she had nine hours for the master's degree, but she did not have the degrees that was contemplated in the posting. She did not have that. You know, the other thing, you brought up subjectivity, which is central to this, and a record to this. There are witness reports saying that the historian was subjective. He also testified that education was subjective. And that the material was subjective-based for him, too. So I said, there's no set rules for determining what education, training, experience that made a master-level background equivalent to a master's level qualification described in the posting. Ms. Cutler had a bachelor's degree. She did not have a master's degree as was stated in the posting that was required in  According to his testimony, the only learning that they had from the interview was just the interview information. They did not have access to the applications or the material that Mr. Edwards and Ms. Cutler allegedly had. All they had was their testimony, what they told them. And I don't know if that makes the point, but what Ms. Cutler told them was what they made the recommendation on. There was no examination of her background at all. Only the testimony that she gave. And when you look at the background of what she had, the record supported that she testified that she had 15 hours and that she was currently working on her master's. But she had not attended any coursework in 10 years. Ms. Edwards had everything that the posting required that they have for a position. Mr. Edwards, during the interview process of the candidates, in particular your client and Ms. Cutler, was there any evidence presented as to any differences in terms of the questions that were asked of the applicants, things of that nature? Was any of that presented in the evidence? You know, not that I can recall, with regards to, you know, other than the fact that my understanding that the images came in at different times, that we don't know exactly what questions were asked. But it was written about Ms. Edwards that he was asked questions that was different than what they were asked Ms. Cutler. Given the fact, you know, that Ms. Edwards had a master's degree and that Ms. Cutler had a bachelor's degree, you know, the distorting difference was, you know, 0.300. Ms. Cutler had 3.107 and Ms. Edwards had 2.817. So, you know, that, you know, there's no explanation as to how, you know, when opposing so that a master's, that a person with a bachelor's degree, you know, could have, end up with a higher score. And this score was based in education. They had a higher education score than what a person with a master's degree had. So basically, we were saying, you know, that the respondents, you know, Ms. Taylor did not independently review the candidates when she approved Ms. Cutler's application. And her only reasoning was that Cutler had the highest score. That was the only basis, you know, for that. It was not based upon qualification. It was based upon the score. And, you know, they're saying, you know, that that score was what you used to reject Michael's evidence concerning how the score was produced. You know, that is when the secular, you know, speeds through inquiry, you know, three stages, you know. The first was that they approved, is that to watch the, the coming part of the commission with regards to examining the basis for the score that they gave Ms. Cutler. And that's what they were basically saying, you know, that the whole process was very subjective. It was not really based upon the qualifications of the client, but simply upon the highest score. When we were asking that there be a reversal in favor of the sex-execution claim and a demand for a termination, a warrant of the appropriate relief, alternatively, you know, they take a demand for application of the correct of pre-sex evidence to the existing administration record. I have no further questions. Well, thank you, Mr. Edwards. If you have any questions, Dr. Stone. Let me follow up. I'm just struggling with my hearing and my vision. That's fine. I was just asking the Justices if they had any further questions. No further questions. No other questions. Thank you. Okay. So, Mr. Edwards, you'll have your rebuttal time in a few moments. Mr. Tillman. Mr. Tillman. Good morning, Your Honors. Good morning, Counsel. May it please the Court, I'm Assistant Attorney General Brady Tillman, representing the State Respondents here. We request that this Court affirm the final administrative order of the Illinois Human Rights Commission. The merits of this case come down to one primary factual finding that this Court reviews under the manifest weight of the evidence standard. Under the third prong of the three-prong test for employment discrimination, the Commission found as a matter of fact that the scoring of Ms. Edwards, excuse me, Mr. Edwards and Ms. Butler's interviews were not pretext for gender discrimination. And that factual finding, which this Court considers prima facie true and correct, is supported by the record. Mr. Edwards argues that one out of the five criteria used to score the candidates, the education and training criteria, was improperly scored to prevent him from getting a promotion based on his gender. More specifically, he insists that equal scores given in education and training are inexplicable because he has a master's degree and certain professional certifications and Ms. Butler, although she partially completed her master's, did not have those precise credentials. At the outset, I'd like to point out that Mr. Edwards faces a very high bar of proof here because he relies entirely on that disparity in credentials. Both this Court and the Seventh Circuit emphasize just how high that bar is. This Court has said that the superiority of credentials must be so obvious that the respondent's reasoning is unbelievable. And the Seventh Circuit has described the need for the gap in credentials to be so substantial as to slap you in the face. There is no such gap here. Initially, I think it's important to frame the promotion of Ms. Butler in the context of the interview process and also the essential functions of the clinical services supervisor position that was at issue. Let me ask about the interview process and I ask this question to Mr. Edwards. Was there any evidence presented of any disparities in the nature in which the interviews were conducted of these two applicants in terms of questions that were asked? Anything along those lines? That, let me start by saying that argument was not made in the appellate brief and Mr. Edwards cited that he's forfeited that argument with respect to the arguments here. But with respect to the merits of the argument. There was one count that was dismissed for lack of evidence. Correct. There was one count that was, with respect to the two counts in the complaint. Yes. There was one count that was dismissed because it was abandoned as it was never argued. Yes. Okay. And I think that the evidence that we're speaking of is more relevant to that count in particular, but that's an unfair terms and conditions of employment count. Yes. With respect to evidence in the record, I believe Mr. Edwards testifies to two things that occurred during his interview. As an initial matter, I don't think we can compare what happened between the interviews because there is no evidence about the questions asked in the other interviews and the extent to which they may be different from Mr. Edwards. But beyond that, the questions that were asked him, one was, they're both clarifying questions about his experience, which are typical questions in this context. One question was confirming that his, Mr. Edwards' position at the time was major, which would only serve to improve his candidacy for the position. And the second question that was asked of Mr. Edwards was whether he had his certified alcohol and drug abuse certificate, which again would also be a credential that would only serve to improve his candidacy. So those were the two questions that Mr. Edwards testified were different, even though he couldn't know they were different with respect to his interview. And he also alleged that the interviewers were talking low and looking down during the interview. So to speak a little bit more about the interview process generally, the interviewers asked 15 questions of each candidate. And they grade those responses on a one to four scale, where the number corresponds to a qualitative assessment of the response. So if the interviewer believes that the credentials are unsatisfactory, then they give a one. If they believe the credentials are acceptable, they give a two. Very good, a three. And excellent, a four. Were the questions the same for both applicants? There were different questions, were there not? Same questions, Your Honor. Of course, as Mr. Edwards' counsel points out, there is a subjective aspect to deciding whether someone's response is, for example, acceptable versus very good, just as there are subjective aspects to evaluating a candidate's credentials in any interview. And to turn for a moment to the position at issue, it's fundamentally a supervisory position. The position was clinical services supervisor. So in fact, it's supervising supervisors and the rest of the staff that provides counseling services within the correctional facility. And to answer another one of Your Honor's questions, having experience equivalent to a master's degree in a behavioral or social science or having a degree itself was a minimum requirement for this supervisory position. And Your Honor, to again address your earlier question to Mr. Edwards' counsel more, I think that the job posting language of the posting speaks for itself. In the first sentence under the minimum requirements section of that job posting, I'll read it verbatim here. It says, quote, requires knowledge, skill, and mental development equivalent to completion of four years of college supplemented by a master's degree. So Mr. Edwards' interpretation reads out that entire phrase about equivalency and gives it no meaning. And what did the ALJ find or that the commission adopted with respect to why Ms. Butler's qualifications met that equivalent of four years of college supplemented by a master's degree in behavioral or social sciences? What was the evidence that they found that supported that finding? I don't know that the finding shows up in that specific way, Your Honor. I can, maybe it would be helpful to speak to the findings underlying the third prong of the analysis. All right, go ahead. Thank you. So with this context in mind, the process, the functions of this supervisory position, I think it becomes clear how an interviewer can grade this education and training criteria the way that they did here. So there are two questions that comprise this education and training criteria. One question with respect to education and one with respect to training. The education question was, what is your highest level of formal education? And the candidates were asked to confine their responses to coursework relevant to the position. In Mr. Edwards' interview, he tells the interviewers that he has a master's degree in rehabilitation counseling, which again is the minimum required academic experience here, and he doesn't otherwise identify any other coursework that seems especially relevant to the position. So he identifies he has a bachelor's degree, but that is in business management, and he doesn't have, for example, a professional doctorate or a PhD or some other advanced degree more than a master's, which again is the minimum required academic experience here. So in that context, an interviewer's grade is education as acceptable, which is a two, rather than a very good as a three. Is that reasoning unbelievable? I submit that that reasoning is not unbelievable. Ms. Butler tells the interviewers that she has a bachelor's degree in criminal justice with a minor in psychology. It feels directly relevant to the work of the position here. And she also partially earned credits for her master's degree. Is it unbelievable, then, that the interviewers determined that her education as well was acceptable, a two, rather than unsatisfactory, a one? No, it was not unbelievable. With respect to training, the candidates were asked to describe any training that will enhance your chances of success in this position. In Mr. Edwards' interview, he generally describes trainings that are relevant to the patient-facing aspects of this position. So he identifies counseling technique trainings, being a DUI service provider, your analysis training, among other trainings. The interviewers consider that very good, a three. Is that unbelievable that they would? I submit that it is not unbelievable. Ms. Butler describes training relevant to a different aspect of the supervisory position, which are trainings that are relevant to leadership and administrative functions. So she identifies hostage negotiator training, crisis training, supervisor skills training, and military training. The interviewers also each decide that her training is very good, a three. Is it unbelievable that they did so? I submit that it is not unbelievable. And so those are the only two scores that Mr. Edwards complains of. He does not object to the scoring of the other criteria, the other 13 out of 15 questions passed, including Ms. Butler's higher grades on questions, whereas the interviewers testified, and as the record demonstrates, Ms. Butler gave more specific and direct answers to the questions. And I'd also like to point out that the suggestion that those two questions were the interviewer's vehicle for discrimination here is belied by a mathematical problem as well. Even if Mr. Edwards had received fours on these disputed questions, he still only would have tied Ms. Butler's overall score, which I believe only further demonstrates how the record supports the commission's finding here. So in sum, the commission's finding that the grading of Mr. Edwards and Ms. Butler's interviews were not pretext for discrimination, was not against the manifest way of the evidence. It is hardly unbelievable that they were graded as they were. Certainly Mr. Edwards should be commended for his master's degree and his professional certifications, but they just aren't especially distinguishing here in the context of this position and where Mr. Edwards was seeking a position against a candidate who also had over 17 years of experience in the Department of Corrections and almost half of that as a supervisor as well. So regarding the other issues on review, state respondents will rest on our briefing. Of course I'd be happy to answer any further questions from the court. Just one question pertaining to the issue regarding discovery sanctions. I believe in your brief you argued that this issue had been forfeited on appeal because it was not raised in the written exceptions that were filed by Mr. Edwards for the ARJ's findings and recommendations. Is that correct? That's correct. We argued that this court could not review this challenge because Mr. Edwards failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, which is a little distinct from the forfeiture argument. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies? Yes, Your Honor, and I'll note in that regard that Mr. Edwards' reply argues that this shouldn't be exhaustion because the purposes of exhaustion were served based on the exceptions that were filed. I disagree with that. As Mr. Edwards notes, the purposes of exhaustion are to develop the record and to let the agency apply its expertise and to correct its own errors with respect to the challenge. And because Mr. Edwards, although he did file written exceptions, he did not specifically raise the challenge to these discovery sanctions in those exceptions. And so the commission never considered it or applied its expertise. Any other questions? No further questions. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards, you can proceed with your rebuttal. Your Honor, I would note this is basically less, and that is that Michael Edwards presented a very certifications, you know, as a part of his reviving job about, in addition to his master's degree, a number of certifications that he had. You know, he was a counselor. He had certifications, you know, for that. You know, the only thing that Mr. Butler had, you know, was a master's degree. You know, the posting was very specific about what the departments were. And that was that you had to have a master's degree based upon the posting. Now, there's more than one posting. It was the posting that took place a year before where Michael Edwards was the only applicant, and he qualified for it. They removed that without, you know, notice to him. And a year later, Ms. Butler did not apply for that position. A year later, they reposted the position. Ms. Butler applied for it. When she applied for it, she applied for it, you know, after the deadline, you know, for the application. You know, nevertheless, she never had a master's degree as required. She produced no documentation to support any complaints about her experience. Michael Edwards didn't. You know, we have mentioned those in our briefs about exactly what he produced, you know, with regards to his application for this position. You know, he was extremely qualified for this. His qualification was, as you can use this term, you know, jumping off the page. So, you know, there's no evidence, no testimony to support anything that could use any objective standards in looking at the applications. But I have no comment on that. Any other questions? No further questions. Well, thank you, counsel, for your arguments today. We will take the matter under advisement. We will issue an order in due course. Thank you all very much."}