In Schoff v. Illinois Human Rights Commission, (IL App., Dec. 4, 2025), an Illinois state appellate court affirmed the decision of the state Human Rights Commission to dismiss religious discrimination claims brought by property owners who were cited by the Village of South Barrington for violating its septic tank code. The court concluded that the property owners had failed to produce substantial evidence to sustain any of their claims. According to the court:
In 1985, the property at issue, a single-family residence, was built with 5 bedrooms and two 1,500-gallon septic tanks in the Village, resulting in a 3,000-gallon septic capacity. At some point prior to 2014, the property owner added two unpermitted bedrooms to the residence, bringing the total number of bedrooms to seven. In 2014, the Schoffs, who are Episcopalian Christians, bought the property. Due to their faith, the Schoffs believed they were called to provide short-term housing to people in need, specifically asylum seekers, missionaries and refugees. The Schoffs’ beliefs led them to house, at various times, predominantly Black individuals from Africa, but also occasionally Chinese, Japanese, Colombian and white individuals.
The Schoffs were granted a religious accommodation from a municipal ban on short term rentals but were cited for violation of the septic tank code that required a minimum tank capacity of 3,500 gallons for a 7-bedroom home. The court said in part:
The Schoffs alleged that the Village’s prosecution of the septic code violations against them amounted to harassment, interfered with their religious beliefs, and interfered with their association with Black and African asylum seekers and missionaries. The Schoffs asserted that the Village’s interpretation of its septic code was unreasonable and the Village engaged in selective enforcement of it....
... [T]he Schoffs posit that, when an ordinance contains a variance procedure and the government refuses to grant a variance based upon an applicant’s need to use a property for religious observance and practice, an inference of religious practice discrimination exists....
All the Schoffs can do with the fact that the Village denied them a variance is speculate that the denial had a discriminatory intent. But speculation cannot create substantial evidence.... Consequently, the Commission properly found that the Schoffs failed to make a prima facie showing on Count F, and therefore, it did not abuse its discretion by sustaining the Department’s dismissal on Count F for lack of substantial evidence....
