In Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the Illinois Human Rights Commission’s (“Commission”) dismissal of an employee’s workplace race discrimination charge, holding that the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“Department”) lacked authority to investigate the claim because the employee failed to submit the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC’s”) determination to the Department within 30 days of receiving it, as required by section 7A-102(A-1)(1)(iv) of the Illinois Human Rights Act. The court held that this 30-day deadline is jurisdictional and cannot be excused simply because the Department initially investigated the case.
Although the case arose from an employment discrimination claim, the opinion is equally notable for the court’s response to the employee’s attorney’s use of artificial intelligence (AI), which resulted in sanctions and a referral to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (“ARDC”). After determining that the attorney relied on AI-hallucinated citations and quotations generated by ChatGPT and failed to adequately verify them before filing, the court imposed a $15,000 sanction and the court referred the matter to the ARDC.
The attorney admitted that he frequently used ChatGPT to assist with legal research and drafting and acknowledged that several citations and quotations in his briefs were inaccurate. The court found that the briefs contained numerous AI hallucinations, including nonexistent cases, fabricated statutory quotations, and legal propositions that were not supported by the cited authorities.
The court rejected the notion that AI hallucinations are merely technical deficiencies and made clear that attorneys have an affirmative duty to independently review and verify every citation, quotation, and legal authority before submitting a filing. In addition to imposing a monetary sanction and referring the matter to the ARDC, the court emphasized that attorneys must understand both the benefits and risks of generative AI and cannot shift responsibility for AI-generated hallucinations or other errors to the technology.
While the case stemmed from a workplace discrimination claim and is a reminder that procedural requirements and filing deadlines must be strictly followed, this decision serves as a significant warning for students, employees, and attorneys who use AI tools. The case has broader implications for school districts in that AI-generated content can contain hallucinations or inaccurate information and that human review remains essential. For K-12 schools, this raises issues including student plagiarism and academic integrity, AI-generated bullying and harassment, and privacy concerns associated with uploading student or employee information into AI platforms. The court made clear that AI hallucinations are not an excuse for inaccurate work product and that users, not the technology, remain accountable for the information they submit.
Source: Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, 2026 IL App (1st) 251462
School districts and their legal counsel should consider reviewing their policies, training, and procedures regarding AI use to address these emerging risks and ensure that AI is used responsibly, ethically, and in compliance with applicable legal obligations.
Contact any of our Personnel Practice Group attorneys with your inquiries.
