March 26, 2008

STATE OF ILLINOIS EMPLOYEE LOSES HARASSMENT SUIT

A federal jury recently returned a verdict against Carlos Estes in his sexual harassment suit against Teyonda Wertz, his boss at the Illinois Department of Human Services. Estes was a driver/special assistant for Wertz, who is Chief of Staff for the Illinois Department of Human Services. The portion of the case that got the most attention arose out of a trip Estes and Wertz made down to Springfield, Illinois for a conference.

According to Estes, he learned upon his arrival to Springfield that he had to share a hotel suite with Wertz. Estes testified that after getting settled into the room, Wertz ordered him into the bedroom and then ordered him to take off his clothes and make love to her. Estes testified that he refused to have sex with Wertz, but did change into pajamas and laid down on the bed, where he eventually fell asleep next to Wertz.

Wertz testified that Estes volunteered to share the suite. She further testified that she stayed in the bedroom portion of the suite the entire time[alone]with the door shut.

In summing up the trial, one of the jurors noted, "...speaking for myself, I didn't believe either one of them."

820201_hotel_room.jpg

February 28, 2008

TAX ISSUES SATISFY PUBLIC POLICY REQUIREMENT FOR ILLINOIS RETALIATORY CLAIM

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently weighed in on the "public policy" element Illinois retaliatory discharge plaintiffs must show. In Benders v. Bellows and Bellows, the plaintiff filed a three count complaint in federal court after her termination from the defendant law firm. The third count of her complaint alleged she was terminated in retaliation for threatening to report a dispute about her employement status to the IRS. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and Benders appealed.

The underlying facts involve a romantic relationship gone sour between the plaintiff[the office administrator] and one of the principals at the firm. In December of 2003, some months prior to plaintiff's termination, her status was changed from employee to independent contractor, pursuant to a discussion she had with a name partner at the firm. Benders claimed the change was only termporary and, after a short period of time, she was to regain her employment status. In any event, from that date until her discharge, her checks listed her as an "independent contractor".

In April of 2004, after receiving another paycheck noting her independent contractor status, plaintiff contacted Joel Bellows and reminded him that she wanted to refinance her home and needed her paystub to reflect her status as an employee. Several days later, after being informed that no change would be made, Benders advised the firm she intended to file a complaint with the IRS regarding her employment classification. Shortly thereafter, she was told to leave the firm.

In discussing the retaliatory count, the Court first noted that plaintiff was obligated to prove: 1) that she was discharged; 2) in retaliation for her activities and 3) in violation of a clear public policy. That public policy prong is not satisfied if only private interests are at stake. Defendant argued that Benders status as an employee or independent contractor involved only plaintiff's economic interests, and therefore, she couldn't show any violation of a public policy. The Court however, disagreed. The opinion notes that the federal laws classifying personnel as employee or independent contractors concern more than one employee's bank account. Those laws affect tax revenues collected by the federal government - and tax revenues are indeed a public concern. The trial court's order granting summary judgment on Count III was reversed.

589848_tax_forms.jpg

December 9, 2007

DAMAGES LIMITATIONS STRUCK DOWN BY ILLINOIS JUDGE

As previously noted in my September 20, 2007 entry, trial lawyers across Illinois were holding their breath, waiting for an important decision out of the courtroom of Judge Diane Larsen, a Cook County trial judge. Judge Larsen was presiding over a case where recent legislation that capped damages in medical malpractice cases was being challenged. Specifically, the 2005 legislation had capped "non-economic" damages, or pain and suffering, at $500,000. In other words, the law provided that regardless of the circumstances, no successful Illinois plaintiff could recover more than $500,000 for pain and suffering. I am absolutely delighted to report that on November 14, 2007, Judge Larsen struck down that law.

Judge Larsen correctly noted that the limitation placed on damages by the legislation violated the Separation of Powers clause in the Illinois Constituation. In effect, Judge Larsen noted that the legislation impermissibly permitted lawmakers down in Springfield to interfere with the responsiblity of a civil jury - determining the fair and reasonable amount of damages that can be awarded. In effect, the Judge ruled that a bunch of legislators, sitting down in Springfield, had no business, nor any right, to insert themselves arbitrarily into the evaluation of damages aspects of lawsuits. After all, it is the jury who sits through the trial, sees the exhibits, hears the witnesses and listens to the arguments of the lawyers trying the case. Isn't the jury then, in a much better position to decide the value of a case as opposed to a legislator who knows absolutely nothing about that case?

The "tort deform" movement[i.e. insurance companies, various Republicans and other regugnant life forms] spearheaded this legislation using fabricated scare tactics about doctors fleeing the state because of the "insurance crisis". That explanation, of course, is nonsense. Premiums are going up because insurance companies have made very poor investment choices. So insurance companies had a choice - be candid with their insureds and admit they made bad business decisions, or, distract their insureds with carnival-like sideshows. The insurance choice? Go with the sideshows. That explains why you see rallies downstate with doctors in their finely pressed white smocks moaning about "runaway verdicts". The tort deformers will go to great lengths to keep their insureds in the dark.

Not suprisingly, the forces of darkness have vowed to appeal Judge Larsen's ruling. Hopefully the Supreme Court of Illinois will do the right thing and uphold her decision.

December 4, 2007

RECOVERY FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY UNDER ILLINOIS WORKMENS' COMPENSATION ACT

Illinios workers seeking to recover for non-traumatically induced mental disease have significant evidentiary obstacles to overcome. In order to prevail, the worker must show: 1) the mental disorder arose in a situation of greater dimensions that day to day emotional strain and tension present in every workplace; 2) the mental condition must exist in reality, from an objective standpoint and 3) the employment conditions, when compared with other potential non-employment explanations, were the major contributing cause of the mental disorder. Northwest Suburban Special Education Organization v. The Industrial Commission (1st Dist. 2000), 312 Ill.App. 3d 783, 245 Ill.Dec. 416, 728 N.E.2d 498.

My office recently tried a case on behalf of a worker who sustained non-traumatically induced panic disorder as a result of work conditions. This individual had an underlying psychological issue that was well under control, and, importantly, the employer was well aware of the condition. Thankfully we were able to provide convincing evidence that my client was singled out for harsh treatment none of this co-workers had to endure. In addition, we presented evidence that the harsh treatment continued even after the employee complained that it was aggravating his underlying condition. My client's deteriorating physical and psychological conditions were properly documented by health care professionals. Finally, his domestic situation was great - there were no other explanations for why he went into a tailspin. The arbitrator decided in my client's favor and entered a nice award on my client's behalf.

November 27, 2007

MERCK SETTLES VIOXX CASES

Pharmaceutical giant Merck has agreed in principle to settle all remaining Vioxx lawsuits. The company has agreed to pay $4.85 billion to plaintiffs in 27,000 pending cases. The settlement was cobbled together after juries from New Jersey to California had heard about 20 cases. In the very first case a jury awarded $253 million dollars, but Merck had prevailed in the other cases.

According to published reports, Merck's legal bills for the Vioxx litigation were running over $600 million dollars a year. The proposed agreement has to be accepted by 85% of those persons with pending cases. Lawyers involved in the litigation have indicated they are confident the deal will be finalized. Each plaintiff will receive an amount of money commensurate with the severity of his injuries. Published reports have estimated that the remaining 27,000 cases involve 47,000 plaintiffs. On average, each plaintiff then would receive approximately $100,000. Those persons who don't want to take the deal can pursue their own claims.

The settlement does not, however, terminate pending criminal investigations against Merck. Several states, as well as the Department of Justice, are investigating Merck's behavior. Although Merck withdrew the drug from the market in 2004, internal Merck documents showed the Merck scientists had voiced concerns about potential adverse health consequences years earlier. In addition, a large clinical trial in 2000 raised concerns about Vioxx.

The kicker? The settlement represents less than one year's profits for Merck.

755950_white_pills.jpg

November 27, 2007

ALLSTATE AND STATE FARM SUED FOR CONSPIRACY

The Louisiana Attorney General, Charles Foti, recently filed suit against Allstate and State Farm, accusing the two companies of conspiring to limit payments to policyholders after Louisiana was pounded by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The lawsuit alleges that the two companies worked together to manipulate damages estimates and to low ball claimants who suffered damages. Specifically the lawsuit alleges that the companies edited engineering reports and delayed payments, forcing policyholders to go to court to challenge estimates. In the event Mr. Foti needs any help with these varmints, he should get in touch with Mississippi Senator Trent Lott. Senator Lott recently pledged a solemn vow to go medieval on those nasty insurance companies for the way they have mistreated policyholders.

November 7, 2007

ILLINOIS WHISTLEBLOWER ACT DOESN'T IMPACT RETALIATORY DISCHARGE

The First Appellate Court recently came down with an interesting decision involving the Illinois Whistleblower Act, 740 ILCS 174/1. In Callahan v. Edgewater Care, the plaintiff, Melissa Callahan, claimed that she was fired from her position as an admissions clerk in a nursing home for reporting activity that she felt was in violation of state law. Specifically, Callahan alleged that she was discharged for reporting to two supervisors that one of the residents was being kept in the facility against his will. After her discharge, plaintiff filed a retaliatory discharge lawsuit. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the enactment of the Whistleblower Act preempted her retaliatory case. Defendant's Motion was granted. Ms. Callahan appealed.

The Appellate Court noted that the Whistleblower Act[effective 1/1/04] prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement authority where the employee believes the information discloses a violation of State of Federal law. The Court went on to note that a violation of the Act may result in 1) reinstatement of the employee; 2) back pay, with interest; and 3) compensatory damages including litigation fees, expert fees and attorney fees. The Defendant argued that the Whistleblower Act had, by implication, preempted existing common law remedies available to employees discharged for their activities. The Court found absolutely no support for defendant's position and reversed the trial judge's decision.

The enactment of the Whistleblower Act will provide some additional relief to employees who report misconduct to superiors. Traditionally, in order to prevail in a retaliatory discharge claim, an employee had to show 1) he was discharged for his activities and 2) that the discharge violated public policy. Certain courts however, were overly strict in exactly what constituted a violation of public policy and otherwise valid claims were dismissed. Now employees have another avenue of recovery available.

718988_whistle.jpg

October 31, 2007

MORE DETAILS ON CHICAGO PRIEST ACCUSED OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

More details are emerging about precisely how early Church authorities were aware of alleged sexual misconduct on the part of Rev. Donald J. McGuire. McGuire was a teacher at Loyola Academy in the late 1960's. In 1969, Rev. Charles Schlax contacted the the president of Loyola, Rev. John Reinke, to complain about McGuire. A young man had complained to Fr. Schlax that McGuire was a "pervert". The youth had apparently been staying at Loyola for as much as a week at a time, including nights. Schlax had requested an investigation into McGuire. Shortly thereafter McGuire was informed he was going to take a sabbatical.

Then in 2000, several families who had sons working as aides to McGuire expressed more concern about McGuire's behavior. One family reported that their son told them McGuire was overwhelming him with pornography and sexual discussions. Another family complained that McGuire was pressuring their son to avoid college, family and friends - and instead spend more time with McGuire. McGuire apparently encouraged the kid to sleep on the floor in his room, or in his bed.

Shockingly, McGuire's superiors have indicated as recently as 2005 that they had no knowledge of McGuire's proclivities. Turns out they had plenty of notice and allowed this guy to terrorize kids for 40 years.

October 26, 2007

ANOTHER SEXUAL ABUSE LAWSUIT AGAINST CHICAGO PRIEST

Just this week, another sexual abuse lawsuit was filed against Rev. Donald McGuire, a Chicago area priest. The lawsuit, filed by two brothers, claims that McGuire sexually abused the two boys at different times. The older brother is claiming abuse from 1988 through 1994, while the younger brother is claiming abuse from 2001 through 2002.
In 2006, McGuire was convicted of molesting two boys in the 1960's. He is currently living in Oak Lawn, a southwest Chicago suburb, while that conviction is being appealed. He was only recently advised by his superiors that he can no longer wear his collar.

AND WHO PAYS THE PRICE??

In an ironic twist, just this week I saw another article about the efforts taken by the Los Angeles Diocese to fund the $660 million dollar settlement it reached with hundreds of sexual abuse victims. The diocese has decided to sell some 50 non-parish properties. One of those properties is the convent used by the Sisters of St. Bethany, located in Santa Barbara. The convent, which was built for the order in 1952 is currently occupied by three older nuns who work with the poor in the community. Although they do not pay rent, they do make sufficient funds to sustain the property. Recently, the Diocese advised them[in a letter]that they were to vacate the premises on or before 12/31/07. The Diocese defended its action by noting that everybody was having to sacrifice. By way of example, it was noted that Diocese employees didn't get a raise in 2007. Okay, but that doesn't quite equate with losing your home of 50 years. And not to put too fine a point on it, but the nuns didn't abuse any minors. Instead, that was done by 245 Diocese priests. And the unrebutted evidence indicates that for decades the Diocese didn't act on parent complaints, didn't call police and didn't warn parishioners when allegations were made against a particular priest. In fact, up until 2004, parishioners were not advised of allegations against a Diocese priest even if that priest was "sent away" for psychological counselling. How many of those 50 non-parish properties that house priests are being sold??

October 24, 2007

ANOTHER VERDICT AGAINST CHICAGO POLICE

The Chicago Police Department is not having a particularly good month when it comes to lawsuits. Just a week after a 4 million dollar settlement to a man who claimed he was brutalized with a screwdriver, the Department was back in a federal courtroom in another civil case. This one didn't work out well for the CPD either.

The case originated from a 2001 incident. An unidentified man had approached an 8 year old girl near her home and and offered to take her on a "field trip". The girl's mother overhead the discussion, raced outside and chased the guy away. She then called police and provided a description of the suspect. In addition, posters, which included a drawing of the suspect, were put up in the Southwest side neighborhood where the incident occurred.

The police then got a tip. Someone called in and said the guy on the poster looked like a guy he had gone to school with - Tim Finwall. Finwall was then arrested, although there was evidence he was bartending at a local tavern at the time of the incident. Finwall was placed in a lineup with four cops. The girl came in and told police the suspect could be "the short one" or the "tall one". Not exactly a positive identification. Nonetheless, the police, in their reports, indicated that the girl had identified Finwall. Finwall was then charged with attempted child abduction. The case went to trial, and thankfully Finwall was acquitted. Interestingly, there was some evidence that perhaps the police had targeted Finwall because of an earlier incident. Apparently a police officer was drinking in the bar where Finwall worked and got into it with another patron. The officer allegedly made some threatening remarks to the patron and Finwall took the cop's gun. Finwall was then charged with some sort of offense dealing with disarming a police officer, tried and convicted. He served no time.

After the jury heard all the evidence, Finwall was awarded $2 million in damages. The City is of course very disappointed in the verdict, and evaluating their options. Perhaps the City should carefully evaluate its options BEFORE the multimillion dollar verdict.

7524_slow_down.jpg

October 23, 2007

WHISTLEBLOWER VERDICT AGAINST EYE DOCTOR

A St. Louis county jury recently awarded a St. Louis woman $95,000 in punitive damages in a whistleblower trial Michelle Fleshner, 35, had sued Pepose Vision Institute, claiming that she was terminated by Dr. Jay Pepose because she had coooperated with a U.S. Department of Labor investigation of Pepose Vision Institute regarding wage and overtime practices. Ms. Fleshner talked to investigators on May 21, 2003. She was fired two days later. The defendant claimed Fleshner's discharge was coincidental and that a plan had been in place for months to reduce staff.

Ms. Fleshner also claimed at trial that Pepose even managed to get her fired from a subsequent job with different eye doctors. Pepose insisted he was simply enforcing a non-compete contract that Fleshner had signed with him.

Earlier the jury had awarded Fleshner $30,000 in compensatory damages. The results of the Labor Department investigation were not revealed at the trial.

October 15, 2007

ILLINOIS TEEN SETTLES WITH POLICE AFTER GETTING TASERED

A south suburban teenager, Travis Alexander, has agreed to settle his lawsuit against a south suburban Chicago Police Department. Alexander sued the Riverdale Police Department after he was tasered and attacked by a police dog. Alexander was 17 at the time of the incident. He and a friend were walking home from a store when they were stopped by a police officer. The police maintained they had received a tip that Alexander's friend was involved in a drug deal.

Alexander and his friend ran, claiming that they were scared of the Police. Alexander was only two doors from his house when caught. He was then handcuffed and tasered. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the police allowed a German Shepherd Police dog to attack Alexander, causing him injuries on the leg and head. Although no contraband was found on Alexander, he was charged with resisting arrest and trespassing. He was ultimately exonerated of those charges. As a result of the incident, Alexander suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. The Riverdale Police department agreed to pay Alexander $345,000 to dismiss the case.