Adventures in misgovernance
Tuesday, Sep 17, 2013 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The state settled a suit against Sylvia Riperton-Lewis brought by one of her employees at IDHS…
The plaintiff, Kenneth Shanoff, says that Riperton-Lewis, his supervisor at the Illinois Department of Human Services, made life so unpleasant while he worked at the John Madden Mental Health Center in Chicago that he became ill. He says in his lawsuit that Riperton-Lewis called him a “haughty Jew” after she was hired as a manager in 1996 and once lunged at him with a pen.
Soon after becoming his supervisor, Riperton-Lewis told Shanoff that he did not want to see “this n*gger get angry,” according to his lawsuit, and that she once told him “I know how to put you Jews in your place.” When he asked to have days off for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, Shanoff says that Riperton-Lewis told him “I don’t give a damn about your holidays.” […]
Riperton-Lewis denied making any discriminatory statements. A federal trial court ruled that Riperton-Lewis’ remarks weren’t sufficient to constitute a hostile work environment and so dismissed the lawsuit, but a three-judge appellate panel disagreed and ordered the case reinstated.
“She (Riperton-Lewis) used her supervisory position to bully, intimidate and insult Shanoff because of his race and religion, which is the type of ‘extreme’ harassment that is the hallmark of a hostile environment claim,” the appellate court wrote in a 2001 ruling that revived the case that was settled soon thereafter. “Riperton-Lewis’s remarks were not merely inappropriate, insulting, demeaning or annoying, and there is no indication that she was teasing Shanoff or that she simply lacked a proper sensitivity to his race and religion.”
Taxpayers shelled out $300,000 to settle the suit without anyone admitting any wrongdoing.
* But guess what? She’s now back on the payroll…
Last month, the state Department of Healthcare and Family Services hired Riperton-Lewis as a manager for the the department’s Bureau of Quality Management, a position exempt from civil service rules. She is paid $94,500 a year, more than $2,000 more than she was paid when she last worked for the state.
Sheesh.
- roscoe tom - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 9:47 am:
Don’t blame her. Find out who her clout is and then you may have a story.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 9:52 am:
–A federal trial court ruled that Riperton-Lewis’ remarks weren’t sufficient to constitute a hostile work environment and so dismissed the lawsuit,–
Geez, who was the judge?
Who’s Riperton-Lewis’ clout? Why does this bigot, who’s already cost the taxpayers $300K, have another well-paying state job?
- RonOglesby - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 9:54 am:
Welcome to Illinois.
- Ron Burgundy - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 9:57 am:
Sad but sadly typical story of your taxpayer dollars at work. But more interesting from my snarky worldview is we have a John Madden Mental Health Center in Chicago? Does it specialize in treating people who talk gibberish about football and randomly go “BOOM!” a lot?
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 9:59 am:
This is the kind of ridiculousness that fuels the public’s negative attitude towards state government. How in the world can the state be so stupid as to hire this bigot back?
- second street - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 10:01 am:
This seems like a Blagojevich happening doesn’t it?
- Sinister - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 10:03 am:
Who heads IGA for Quinn? Wow!
- Susiejones - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 10:06 am:
it is exactly why people are so disheartened with government. very sad. it appears to be yet another case of dysfunction, cronyism, and one symptom of what is wrong with state government. geez.
- walkinfool - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 10:10 am:
Litigated and settled over ten years ago, and now just rehired into government? Am I reading that right?
This could be more a case of hiring sloppiness than clouting.
Who dropped the dime on this, and why?
- lincolnlover - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 10:10 am:
This isn’t news. It happens all the time.
- Ahoy - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 10:13 am:
Well yes she’s working for the State, where else can she make that kind of money for doing lousy work?
- siriusly - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 10:16 am:
If you do things that cause your employer to settle a discrimination suit for $300,000 - no way no how never should you have a job with that employer ever again.
- Cassandra - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 10:26 am:
There will always be dysfunctional supervisors and dysfunctional superisees workers, but where was management when this conflict was going on. Dealing with personnel matters is a major part of an administrative position. And DHS has an awful lot of managers, getting pretty hefty paychecks.
I have worked in places where the supervisor and supervisee had such a toxic relationship that management had to or should have moved one of them to another unit to avoid further misfortunes. I imagine that’s hard to do in civil service though since it sounds like employees kind of own their specific positions through union or personnel rules.
Anyway, I thought the part about her working for the ig’s office for a time was entertaining, not to mention the current Quality Management job. Illinois state govt, you gotta love it.
- cod - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 10:30 am:
His first suit was dismissed because he filed after the 300 day limit set by law. That seems to defy common sense, but explains the legal ruling of the first judge.
The pretty convincing logic of the case is told here:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/2001954258F3d696_1883
It is not at all surprising that nasty bigots operate in all categories of race, but this seems pretty extreme. The story demands serious answers to the question of why this clearly obnoxious and incompetent manager remains employed in government. Corruption will never be curbed if events like this are not pursued to their origins.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 10:42 am:
The “state” didn’t hire this person, IMHO she was hired by the Quinn people because her clout is important to the Gov.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 10:42 am:
“Bureau of Quality Management”
The jokes write themselves. How pathetic.
- Chris - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 10:48 am:
I like her linkedin profile which includes a degree in:
Masters of Jurishprudence
Not *quite* jurisprudence, but in the ballpark.
- Kakistocracy Kid - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 10:51 am:
According to her LinkedIn page she has a “Masters of Jurishprudence.” There is a joke somewhere here about her going to the bar to get a law degree!
- dupage dan - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 10:59 am:
Ugly
- anon - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 11:02 am:
This is just the tip of the ice berg….I’m hearing more and more stories of incompetent political hires forcing out competent managers…the Governor is now designating thousands of positions to be exempt from collective bargaining…this is going to get a lot worse…
- Cassandra - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 11:03 am:
Walkinfool has a point. Does the Illinois state hiring authority ever, like, check their potential hires on the internet? Read their old personnel files? Or is that forbidden by some personnel rule or other? Still, if it’s an exempt position they don’t have to follow many rules, I imagine. But I’d vote for sloppiness. It’s the Quinn admin after all.
- Shark Cyclone - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 11:03 am:
1. Convert to judaism.
2. Get a job in her unit.
3. ???
4. Profit!
- Robert the Bruce - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 11:41 am:
==This could be more a case of hiring sloppiness than clouting.==
If that’s true, then Julie Hamos could reverse direction today in light of this information and fire her, right? She wasn’t hired for a union job.
- Liberty First - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 11:45 am:
Everyone who worked for the state knows how bad these issues became the day Blago picked up his phone as governor (notice I didn’t say walked into the governor’s office). Quinn has done nothing more than attack employees.
- BMAN - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 11:47 am:
I guess when you have someone with clout in your corner, it doesn’t matter how big an ass you are.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 11:47 am:
==the Governor is now designating thousands of positions to be exempt from collective bargaining==
That because a law was passed to allow that. I wouldn’t link that to this particular case. These people are being removed from the union for a reason and it isn’t politics necessarily.
- Just a Citizen - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 12:04 pm:
Keep the spotlight on this story and other similar political hack stories. Otherwise the hacks and Quinn will keep their heads down for a day or two and ride out the storm. I am appalled.
- fed up - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 12:05 pm:
demoralized
what do you think those jobs are that he is exempting from bargaining? They are PATRONAGE JOBS!!!
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 12:06 pm:
===what do you think those jobs are that he is exempting from bargaining? They are PATRONAGE JOBS!!! ===
And I, for one, would rather keep patronage employees out of the union.
- Anon. - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 12:07 pm:
==That because a law was passed to allow that. I wouldn’t link that to this particular case. These people are being removed from the union for a reason and it isn’t politics necessarily.==
But the law was passed specifically to allow the Governor to hire whomever he wanted, and to get rid of those he didn’t want, in positions that were either determined by the Labor Relations Board to qualify to join the union or were conceded by the administration as qualifying. So the connection is that a governor who makes this kind of hiring decision was given a couple of thousand positions to play with.
- Soccermom - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 12:12 pm:
Rich — Amen.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 1:39 pm:
===what do you think those jobs are that he is exempting from bargaining? They are PATRONAGE JOBS!!! ===
Not all of them are patronage jobs. This action wouldn’t have been necessary if the Blago/Quinn administration didn’t treat merit comp employees as thralls.
- Anon. - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 1:47 pm:
===what do you think those jobs are that he is exempting from bargaining? They are PATRONAGE JOBS!!! ===
They are now, but most were not before. If they had been patronage job holders that were converted to union status, no one would have done anything about it until the current job-holders left and the administration discovered it couldn’t replace them with other patronage appointments.
- Original Rambler - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 2:26 pm:
Many of the positions being exempted should still have some form of civil service protection. I don’t believe they will all end up as at will positions.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 2:50 pm:
You’ve got your front line unionized staff, your patronage workers, and your legitimate managers, and I guess there could be some cross between the last two. Sometimes political hires can add value to an organization if they have applicable skills and can advance the policy of the administration. A “patronage worker” if not value adding, should be kept hidden from sight and whatever you do, don’t “give them the keys”.
- Six Degrees of Separation - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 2:51 pm:
Unless is the keys to the car where they will go to a place to get lost and not be seen.
- Formerly Known As... - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 2:52 pm:
This is fundamentally repulsive.
Question is: Who hired her back? And how do either of them still have their jobs?
There’s no room for junk like this, directed towards any race or religion.
- DuPage Dave - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 3:45 pm:
Someone please do some digging on this to see who is sponsoring this awful person so that sponsor gets the embarrassment he or she deserves.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 4:05 pm:
==what do you think those jobs are that he is exempting from bargaining?==
They shouldn’t have been in the union in the first place. You can’t have everybody in the union and these people didn’t belong there. There are always going to be political hires and there are far fewer spots to do so than there used to be. Grow up.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 4:09 pm:
@Original:
They will be “at will” positions generally in terms of hiring (you can hire who you want) and firing (with a few exceptions you can be asked to leave). But, you are right, almost every position, exempt or not, has some level of civil service protection but when it comes to exempt employees the protections are pretty basic and won’t prevent you from being fired for most reasons.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 6:11 pm:
=== They shouldn’t have been in the union in the first place. ===
Agreed, but they shouldn’t have been forced to join the union to get a pay raise. Any merit comp employee who didn’t try to join the union either knew that their position would make their attempt fruitless or he was stupid.
- Fed up - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 6:23 pm:
Was hired by Quinn administration because of who she knows. That would be the real story who’s favor is Quinn seeking by hiring this person.
- Mama - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 8:23 pm:
Not only do obnoxious and incompetent managers/supervisors remain employed in government, they are usually given a job at another agency or get promoted at their current agency. This has been happening with state management for a very long time.
- BehindTheScenes - Tuesday, Sep 17, 13 @ 8:49 pm:
Call me cynical, but an underlying theme I’m seeing in many of these comments is that the Rutan decision does not apply to this (or many) Democratic administrations.