|Home||About||Membership||CLE||Publications||Member Groups||Events||Career||Practice Tools||Store||Public||Contact|
Now every article is the start of a discussion. If you're a member of the Illinois State Bar Association, you can comment on either of the articles that appear below.
Mendez v. The Town of Cicero
Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Town retaliated against her for reporting alleged sexual harassment by deputy police superintendent toward a subordinate, by transferring her from executive administrative assistant to superintendent to clerk in building department. Jury found that transfer was retaliatory, but did not award her damages for alleged emotional distress and lost future earnings. Court separately ruled Plaintiff was entitled to reinstatement and awarded her $330,412 in attorney fees. Award of attorney fees was reasonable. Fees are not required to be proportional to amount of Plaintiff's own award. Reinstatement vindicated Plaintiff's right under Human Rights Act to be free from retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. Plaintiff's refusal to accept Town's unilateral decision to transfer her was not a pretext to inflate attorney fees and costs. (FITZGERALD SMITH and LAVIN, concurring.)
Plaintiff applied to Illinois State Police (ISP) for a FOID card but was denied based on his criminal history, which included misdemeanor conviction for domestic battery. Court granted ISP's request to intervene, and denied Plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to prove his entitlement to relief under Section 10 of FOID Act, including that relief would not be contrary to federal law. Record is sufficient to support ISP's claim that Plaintiff did not serve time in jail after his conviction and sentence for domestic battery; he was granted credit for days served, which was length of his sentence. Thus, he did not lose his civil rights, and thus he could have no civil rights restored. Thus, Plaintiff cannot take advantage of Section 921(a)(33)(B)(ii) of federal Gun Control Act's "civil rights restored" exemption, and thus remains under a federal firearm disability. (STEIGMANN and APPLETON, concurring.)
People ex rel. Madigan v. Wildermuth
(Court opinion corrected 4/12/16.) Attorney General filed a complaint alleging that Defendants (attorney and realtor) violated Section 3-102(B) of the Illinois Human Rights Act by intentionally targeting predatory practices, in loan modifications for real estate, against minorities by aiming their advertising at African-Americans and Latinos. The State may claim a violation under the Illinois Human Rights Act pursuant to a reverse redlining theory where it did not allege that the defendant acted as a mortgage lender. (REYES and GORDON, concurring.)
Cebertowicz v. Madigan
Plaintiff, an inmate at DOC, filed pro se complaint for mandamus relief, demanding that the AG investigate his claims his civil rights were being violated by DOC employees who refused to provide him with his "constitutional right to a religious diet". Illinois Civil and Equal Rights Enforcement Act contains no consequence for noncompliance, and thus the statute is discretionary, not mandatory. AG has no clear duty to act, and Plaintiff has no clear right to requested relief. Thus, court properly dismissed Plaintiff's mandamus complaint. (STEIGMANN and APPLETON, concurring.)
Disclaimer: This newsletter is for subscribers’ personal use only; redistribution is prohibited. Copyright Illinois State Bar Association. Statements or expressions of opinion appearing herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Association or Editors, and likewise the publication of any advertisement is not to be construed as an endorsement of the product or service offered unless it is specifically stated in the ad that there is such approval or endorsement.