not have relied on Illinois law “because she claims to have been unaware of the basis for litigation until a short time before filing suit.” 908 F.2d at 1390. Following this lead, the district judge in Lems v. Hermann stated: Similar to the plaintiff in Short, because Lewis was unaware of his claims until after the new period of repose [section 13] had expired, he could not have delayed filing in reliance on Illinois law. Lewis v. Hermann, 775 F.Supp. at 1146 (citing Short, 908 F.2d at 1390). This “late discovery” rule seems to have some support in the Seventh Circuit’s most recent discussion of this issue. See Ferguson v. Roberts, 11 F.3d 696, 702-03 nn. 6 & 7 (7th Cir.1993) (seeming to indicate that because the plaintiffs could not have complied with Short, had it app 7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Given the necessary factual showing for
holding that  523a13 does not apply retroactively holding that illinois wage law did not apply to nonresident employee who worked outside the state even though eim ployers primary place of business was in illinois holding that short would not apply retroactively because plaintiffs forewent an state court lawsuit in reliance on illinois law holding that apprendi does not apply retroactively holding miranda decision does not apply retroactively