Piervil v. Department of Employment Security

── Piervil v. Department of Employment Security ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 250089-U No. 1-25-0089 Order filed May 15, 2026 Sixth Division NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ ROSEMANE PIERVIL, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County. ) v. ) ) No. 24 L 50036 THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT ) SECURITY, THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT ) SECURITY, THE BOARD OF REVIEW, and ) ALDEN HEATHER REHAB & HEALTHCARE, ) Honorable ) Daniel P. Duffy, Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge Presiding. JUSTICE GAMRATH delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Pucinski and Hyman concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: We affirm the final administrative decision of the Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security determining that plaintiff’s misconduct makes her ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits. ¶2 Plaintiff Rosemane Piervil appeals from an order of the circuit court affirming the final administrative decision of the Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security No. 1-25-0089 (Board), finding Piervil was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits under section 602(A) of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (820 ILCS 405/602(A) (West 2022)) because she was discharged for misconduct. On appeal, Piervil contends that she was discharged based on a “forged accusation” and that the Board ignored her facts. We affirm. ¶3 Piervil worked as a nurse at Alden Heather Rehab & Healthcare (Alden) between August 17, 2022, and May 15, 2023. She thereafter applied for unemployment insurance benefits and completed a “Misconduct Questionnaire.” In the questionnaire, Piervil stated she claimed harassment and discrimination. She reported being threatened with termination if she did not work weekends, was accused of leaving work early despite working more than eight hours that day, and said she provided proper notice of being sick between May 8 and 12, 2023. Piervil stated she was fired on May 15, 2023, for not contacting an administrator directly and denied any prior warnings. ¶4 Alden disputed Piervil’s claim, stating she was discharged for being absent without notice for five days. Alden provided an Employee Separation Notice and two disciplinary memos: one cited her five-day absence without notifying the administrator, and another formal warning described Piervil leaving early during a license survey on April 27, 2023, without notice. The warning noted prior issues and that managers are required to stay until surveyors leave. When surveyors requested documents from Piervil’s area, she was unavailable. Piervil refused to sign the memo. ¶5 On May 26, 2023, Piervil told the Department of Employment Security that her husband Joseph went to work several times in early May but could not