Login

2009 - Firm's Sexual Harassment Client Wins Summary Judgment Decision and is Awarded Jury Trial

United States District Court Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Div.  February  2009

The Honorable Judge  issued an opinion in a sexual harassment case brought by one of our clients in federal court. In that case, our client who was employed by a bank  sued for sexual harassment, claiming that she was sexually harassed by her branch manager which consisted of offensive language and unwanted comments and touching.

Following discovery, the Bank's attorneys  asked the court for a ruling on summary judgment. In the motion, the Bank's attorneys  argued that our client’s case should be dismissed and she should be denied a jury trial on the basis that she could not win in front of a jury. The  Bank’s attorneys argued that the Bank took immediate action by terminating the alleged harasser once after HR became aware of the incident. We argued that our client had complained much earlier but her immediate supervisor took to no action to stop the harassment and it continued. The court agreed with us and denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

In handing our client that decisive summary judgment win, the judge acknowledged that a complete failure by the Bank to respond sexual harassment complaints for almost 4 months simply cannot be viewed as a reasonable to prevent further harassment. The judge went on to award our client a jury trial where she can seek compensatory, punitive and mental anguish damages in front of a jury. The jury trial is set to occur in June 2009.

2009- Client With Severe Stuttering Disability Wins Summary Judgment Motion

Human Rights Commission   March  2009

Our client, a severe stutterer, brought a complaint against the Defendent municipality and his Union claiming that he was subjected to discrimination because he stutters each time he speaks. When he complained about the discrimination, he was subjected to retaliation for complaining. After discovery of evidence in the case, both the City and Union asked that the Illinois Human Rights Commission dismiss the case on various grounds, including a claim that his stuttering was not a disability or handicap recognized by the law under the Illinois Human Rights Act.

We resisted the motion on written submissions by Scott Fanning, one of our attorneys. In the thoroughly documented written opposition, we argued that stuttering was a disability/handicap recognized by law as deserving of protections under Illinois civil rights laws. We further argued that our client deserved a hearing on the merits of his retaliation case because substantial evidence supported his claim of discrimination as well as retaliation citing specific facts that he was subjected to unfair and unequal terms conditions of employment due to his disability and for complaining about being treated poorly for it. The judge agreed.

In handing our client a ground-breaking victory on all aspects of the motion and in rejecting the employer’s and union’s arguments, the judge ruled that our client had advanced sufficient evidence to prove that his stuttering may qualify as a handicap/disability under the Illinois Human Rights Act. The Judge further held that our client presented sufficient evidence that his employer and Union were indifferent to his complaints and thus may properly sustain a claim of retaliation. This ruling clears the way for our client to receive a full public hearing in the case.

2009- Racial Harassment Client Defeats Summary Judgment, Earns Federal Jury Trial

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois,  Eastern Div. June  2009

Our client brought federal court claims of racial harassment and retaliatory failure to promote. He claimed that he was referred to as a “nigger” countless times while working in defendant’s Illinois Facility. He was also subjected to racially derogatory names and comments such as “coon” “nappy headed hoes” and others. One of his co-workers also had a confederate flag in his work locker in plain view.

When he complained to management about the racial slurs, he was written up, harassed some more, subjected to other inferior treatment, and denied a promotion that he was due. He sued in federal court seeking compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendant. While his lawsuit was pending, Defendant terminated his employment. Shortly after his employment was terminated, the lawyer that had been representing him withdrew from his case. Immediately thereafter, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment asking that the court dismiss his entire case.

Without no attorney and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment pending in front of the Honorable Judge, he came to our law firm seeking representation with long odds. We ultimately accepted representation and asked the court for time to respond to the pending motion to dismiss.

Our law firm responded to the motion for summary judgment and provided evidence to the Honorable Judge that Plaintiff was subjected to a racially hostile work environment and that Defendant’s management failed to take appropriate action to stop it. Instead, Plaintiff was retaliated against and denied a promotion for having complained. The Honorable Judge agreed. In denying Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the racial harassment and failure to promote claims, the Court stated that Plaintiff had created a genuine issue of material fact and is entitled to a jury trial on those issues. The trial will be set to occur in Chicago in August 2009.

Sexual Harassment Assault Client Wins Summary Judgment and Legal Fees (2011)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

The firm received an order from the Honorable Judge  granting our client victory on summary judgment on her assault and battery claims in federal district court. Our client sued an employer in the restaurant business in the U.S. District Court for assault and sexual harassment. During his deposition, Defendent's corporate general manager, who is also a Defendant, admitted that he kissed our client and made certain other sexual comments directed at her. He claimed however, that the kiss and sexually charged comments were made in a benign context. Based on these admissions, our law firm brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that judgment should be entered against the defendant for the assault and battery. We argued that the judge should rule on it without a trial because Defendant’s liability was clear cut on the assault and battery claims. The Honorable Judge agreed.

In his order, he ruled that the corporate general manager’s admitted conduct amounts to assault and battery against our client. The Court then went on to enter judgment on against the Defendant, entitling our client to damages at a later hearing. The court also awarded her legal fees for defendant’s counsel’s failure to respond to requests to admit in a timely manner. The sexual harassment case will be set for trial at a later date.

 

-->