A lawsuit alleging ethics violations nearly a decade ago has become an issue in a Democratic congresswoman’s bid to unseat first-term Republican U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk in what is expected to be one of the country’s most competitive 2016 Senate races.
The complaint alleging workplace retaliation was filed by two employees of a southern Illinois veterans home against Tammy Duckworth, now a Chicago-area congresswoman who at the time led the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs.
The suit was dismissed by a federal judge in 2008 as a “garden variety workplace case.” It was refiled in state court and dismissed again, but then narrowed and brought back a third time. A judge has scheduled a hearing on the complaint for Tuesday, with a trial date tentatively set for next April, a month after the Senate primaries.
Illinois Republicans have highlighted the case, seeking to thwart Duckworth’s bid against Kirk, a moderate in a Democrat-leaning state who is seen as one of the most vulnerable Republican senators next year. Kirk, who had a stroke in 2012 and has been criticized lately for a string of public gaffes, can expect a tough re-election challenge in a presidential year, especially if Illinois-born Hillary Rodham Clinton is also on the ballot.
The Republicans have portrayed the lawsuit as a “whistleblower” case against Duckworth. The congresswoman denies treating the employees unfairly. Duckworth’s defense is being handled by the state attorney general’s office.
ATTACKS AGAINST DUCKWORTH APPEAR POLITICALLY MOTIVATED
PLAINTIFFS DID NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH CASE FOR 3 YEARS…
Plaintiffs Refused To Turn Over Documents To Duckworth’s Attorneys For 3 Years, Documents Were Requested Five Times. In February 2015, the attorney general’s office filed a motion to compel discovery responses. The attorney general’s office contended they asked for documents from the plaintiffs on March 7, 2012 and received no replay. Duckworth’s attorneys also contended that asked for discovery documents five times and received no response. [Case: 2009-L-2, Motion To Compel Discovery Responses, 2/13/15]
Duckworth’s Attorneys Asked For Dismissal Due To Lack Of Prosecution, Plaintiffs Had Not Turned Over Documents For Over 3 Years. On April 2, 2015 the attorney general’s office asked for dismissal for want of prosecution because plaintiffs had not provided discovery in over 3 years. [Case: 2009-L-2, Motion To Dismiss For Want Of Prosecution, 4/2/15]
…BUT ONLY AFTER DUCKWORTH DECLARED FOR SENATE DID PLAINTIFFS COOPERATE
Duckworth Declared For Senate On March 30, 2015. [Politico, 3/30/15]
Trial Date Was Set Two Months After Duckworth Declared For Senate. The trial date of April 4, 2016 was set in a motion hearing held on June 2, 2015, 2 months after Duckworth filed for Senate On March 30, 2015. [Politico, 3/30/15; First Judicial Court of Illinois, 6/2/15]
LEGAL ACTION DRAGGED ON SINCE 2008, OVER 7 YEARS
Plaintiff’s First Filed Suit Against Duckworth In May 2008. On May 15, 2008, Goins and Butler filed suit against Duckworth and Simms in the United State District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. [U.S. District Court For The Southern District Of Illinois, Civil No. 08-354-GPM, Complaint, 5/15/08]
• Suit Was Dismissed In December 2008. “A practical view of the complaint in this case is that Plaintiffs are complaining about matters within the scope of their job duties at the Anna Veterans Home. Plaintiffs are irked at the way they were treated by their supervisors. But this happens in every organization, public and private, and is best addressed by state law and collective bargaining. The First Amendment is not implicated by office backbiting or petty managers. Plaintiffs spoke as employees and not citizens, so their speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice.” [U.S. District Court For The Southern District Of Illinois, Civil No. 08-354-GPM, Decided 12/12/08]
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DUCKWORTH HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED THREE TIMES
First
U.S. District Court Judge Dismissed VA Employees’ Complaint, Saying The Plaintiffs Had No Protection Under The First Amendment And That Their Allegations Were Best Addressed By State Law And Collective Bargaining. “A practical view of the complaint in this case is that Plaintiffs are complaining about matters within the scope of their job duties at the Anna Veterans Home. Plaintiffs are irked at the way they were treated by their supervisors. But this happens in every organization, public and private, and is best addressed by state law and collective bargaining. The First Amendment is not implicated by office backbiting or petty managers. Plaintiffs spoke as employees and not citizens, so their speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, and they are dismissed without prejudice.” [U.S. District Court For The Southern District Of Illinois, Civil No. 08-354-GPM, Decided 12/12/08]
Second
Judge Dismissed Plaintiff’s Case Without Prejudice. In August 2009, the Court found “the complaint and demand for jury trial is so confusing that it cannot properly rule on the Defendants’ combined section 2-619.1 motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs allege that each defendant was acting with her respective capacity as an employee of the IDVA. However, their prayers for relief are vague and ambiguous. Accordingly, Counts II, IV, VII and VII should be dismissed without prejudice and Plaintiffs given leave to file an amending pleading.’ The Court also found “the Plaintiffs should allege which law or regulation the Defendants have violated. Accordingly, those counts should be dismissed without prejudice and Plaintiffs given leave to file an amending pleading.” [Case: 2009-L-2, Order, 8/21/09]
Third
Court Dismissed Emotional Distress Allegations Brought Against Duckworth. Court found “in this case, each and every action taken by Defendants Duckworth and Simms alleged in the Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint and demand for jury trial occurred during the course of their respective official responsibilities and in their respective administrative IDVA positions. Each and every action alleged occurred during the scope and course of employment while at the Veterans Home in Anna, Illinois, and not in a public forum. Therefore, the Court finds that the plaintiffs’ claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress are barred by the principles of collateral estoppel and absolute privilege, and the Defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment are granted.” [Case: 2009-L-2, Order, 1/2/14]
A FEDERAL JUDGE WAS DISMISSIVE OF THE UNDERLYING LAWSUIT
Federal Judge Called The Case “A Garden Variety Workplace Case” Over “Office Backbiting”
Federal Judged Called The Case “A Garden Variety Workplace Case” While Dismissing The Lawsuit.Federal district court Judge Patrick Murphy wrote, while dismissing the case, “This is a garden varietyworkplace case that pits Plaintiffs against their bosses and resulted in what Plaintiffs think is unfair disciplinary action against them. [U.S. District Court For The Southern District Of Illinois, Civil No. 08-354-GPM, Decided 12/12/08]
Federal Judge Said Plaintiff’s Brought Suit Over Allegations Of “Office Backbiting And Petty Managers” While Dismissing The Lawsuit. Federal district court Judge Patrick Murphy wrote, “Plaintiffs are irked at the way they were treated by their supervisors. But this happens in every organization, public and private, and is best addressed by state law and collective bargaining. The first amendment is not implicated by office backbiting or petty managers.” [U.S. District Court For The Southern District Of Illinois, Civil No. 08-354-GPM, Decided 12/12/08]
Federal Judge Said lawsuit Was Brought Because “Plaintiffs Are Irked At The Way They Were Treated By Their Supervisors” While Dismissing The Lawsuit. Federal district court Judge Patrick Murphy wrote, “Plaintiffs are irked at the way they were treated by their supervisors. But this happens in every organization, public and private, and is best addressed by state law and collective bargaining. The first amendment is not implicated by office backbiting or petty managers.” [U.S. District Court For The Southern District Of Illinois, Civil No. 08-354-GPM, Decided 12/12/08]
