Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Duckworth heads to Israel as hearing held on “whistleblower” case

Posted in:

Illinois
YouTube

* AP…

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.

* NRSC…

The NRSC released a new paid web video today to coincide with the beginning of Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth’s trial for silencing whistleblowers at the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs.

“Tammy Duckworth was appointed to run the IDVA by corrupt former Governor Rod Blagojevich and her management of the department was straight out of the Blagojevich playbook,” said NRSC spokeswoman Andrea Bozek. “When Illinois’ veterans needed her most, Tammy Duckworth was too busy silencing whistleblowers to protect her own political career instead of working to improve conditions for veterans.”

* The web video…

* From DPI…

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]

* From Duckworth’s office…

This week, Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth (IL-08) is traveling to Israel on a fact finding mission with Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and several other members of the House of Representatives. The trip is an opportunity for Members of Congress to meet with Israeli leaders and tour strategically important locations. Duckworth is a Member of the House Armed Services Committee and spent 23 years as a member of the Armed Reserve Forces. She retired at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel last year.

“I am honored to take part in this trip and continue to build upon the strong bonds between our two great nations,” said Duckworth. “Israel is one of the United States’ most important allies and as a Member of the Armed Services Committee it is a priority of mine to find ways to strengthen our strategic partnerships in areas such as missile defense and Iron Dome. As a prospering democracy in a tumultuous region, Israel faces unique challenges and I hope to further my understanding of how the United States can stand shoulder to shoulder with our great ally.”

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 10:14 am

Comments

Duckworth’s response is… to leave town?

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 10:18 am
Duckworth’s response was handled by DPI…quite well it seems. Duckworth is doing her job. But nice drive by anyway Anonynous.

Comment by PublicServant Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 10:21 am
Interesting look at Kirk’s health issues.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/mark-kirk-seeks-reelection-after-stroke-is-he-fit-to-hold-office-20150731

Comment by And I Approved This Message Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 10:21 am
I know other commenters have said this in unrelated posts before, but the DPI backlash is tantamount to “if you’re explaining, you’re losing”.

Comment by Colin O'Scopey Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 10:21 am
Where’s the “whistleblowing” in this case? Wnat were they blowing the whistle on? “Office backbiting” and “petty supervisors?”

Where’s the lede, after 10 years and three lawsuits?

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 10:21 am
If this is the best that Kirk can do it is like his prior claims of valor under fire - Much ado about nothing.

Comment by Roscoe Tom Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 10:26 am
@ Wordslinger,

The plaintiff is using what is called the ‘reverse Sally Field’. Essentially she is suing because ‘Tammy didn’t like me. She really didn’t like me’.

Comment by How Ironic Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 10:30 am
Well, ten years old, already dismissed twice, and resurfaced during campaign season — I’d have focused on more substantive issues as well.

Best guess is that these plaintiffs will be somehow compensed regardless of the outcome of any hearing.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 10:31 am
To paraphrase the title of a popular Daniel Day Lewis movie “There Will Be Mud” and it will be dug up where ever it can be found.

Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 10:33 am
Seems rather petty on the part of the ILGOP and a sign of desperation.

Kirk can’t win on his paltry list of accomplishments and his record of goofy spewings, so they have to drudge up something from ten years ago.

Comment by A Jack Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 10:48 am
If this is the best they’ve got against Duckworth, they’re in serious trouble.

Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 10:54 am
Pretty lame compared to the Rutherford and Schock operations.

Comment by PolPal56 Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 10:55 am
Not a new issue.

There are other whistle blowers who were targeted by the Blago Regime who were ultimately blackballed, fired and/or denied reasonable pay raises & job growth opportunities.

These instances were then and are now actionable. Affected employees have chosen to steer clear of a public case public for many reasons.

We will never know the full extent of the damage caused by the Blago/Quinn administrations and their poor leadership decisions.

The Duckworth case is just one example of the type of poor decisions made regularly during their tenure.

Comment by anoninordertoremainanon Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 10:58 am
I am mot anti-duckworth…. I just have always been a bit underwhelemd over her. Normally i would be supporting Kirk here…. But he appears to no longer be a good choice either…. Is there a green party , independent or libertarian candidtae?

Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 11:12 am
Duckworth is doing right by going to Israel to build relationships that will fund her. Another player on the Dem side will announce tomorrow on wed that he is running. Question is who will get the most PAC money????

Comment by King Maker Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 11:22 am
sounds like the Fed judge ruled the case is best handled in state court. why is that a smackdown on the case? DPI should read the ruling

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 11:26 am
Whew! Way, way over the top response/defense of Duckworth that adds to the questions that may need to be asked here. Republicans should be thanking the author of this defense and his/her supervisors for publishing it. The tin foil stuff (Republicans controlling the litigation?) is pretty hilariously over the top. Sure called attention to this case!

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 11:28 am
Louis, you’re right.

Whoever heard of someone fronting for a political organization with litigation?

Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 11:33 am
Louis: LOL The DPI response “sure called attention to this case,” and the Kirk campaign ads did not?

We shall see if this has any legs to stand on, after three attempts.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 11:39 am
==sounds like the Fed judge ruled the case is best handled in state court. why is that a smackdown on the case? DPI should read the ruling==

As should you. The reason it was sent down, was because the Judge did not find it to be a “whistleblower” case, though questions of unfair dismissal might still remain to be reviewed at the state level.

Comment by walker Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 11:46 am
The case implies that the reason she ==screwed up== by firing employee before placing them on probation is because there were no grounds to place them on probation other than being a whistleblower.

If you have nothing to put them on probation for before terminating them, you obviously can not place them on probation.

We’ll see what happens in court.

Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 11:51 am
Pretty rich response from DPI. Mike Madigan says Union County judges playing politics. nothing to see here in Cook County though…

Comment by DecaturGuy Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 11:51 am
===Duckworth is doing right by going to Israel to build relationships that will fund her.===

===The trip is an opportunity for Members of Congress to meet with Israeli leaders and tour strategically important locations.===

I called her office today to see if the “important locations” include any part of Palestine or any of the leaders of Palestine. The answer I received from her office was no.

I would agree that the trip appears to be more for campaign financial and election related political reasons than anything else.

Comment by CookCoVoter Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 12:20 pm
I am also increasingly in the unhappy camp that rejects the two candidates Illinois voters may most likely be choosing between next November to represent us — Kirk and Duckworth. Neither Duckworth nor Kirk instill confidence in their political prowess, integrity and decision making these days. It’s truly a shame this is where we’re at.

Comment by Responsa Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 1:13 pm
I’m actually more put off about her cookie-cutter pro-Israel statement than I am about the whistleblower stuff. I guess if you want to be a Senator anymore you have to kiss Bibi’s/AIPAC’s/ADL’s ring.

Comment by Whoa boy Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:21 pm
@walker and @wordslinger: I learned more about this lawsuit by reading the DPI response than I did reading all the newspaper articles and press releases that were published before that shriek!

DPI, tell me more!

Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 2:39 pm
The Armed Forces Committee in Congress (Hoyer and Duckworth) gave Israel $3.1 billion in FY16. $800 million was a direct deposit into the Israeli National account without any strings. Yes, we gave them CASH without strings, not old tanks.

The State of Illinois received $3.9 billion in FY14, however none of the money from the Federal Government was without strings. And we were basically just getting OUR tax money back.

I admire the Israelis for refusing to subsidize alcohol like we do in the US. If you are in Israel, you are going to want a hotel room with a fridge so you can buy a six pack. Maybe a small bottle of rum in your carry-on? Seriously, booze is double what it is here due to taxes and I wish we’d wise up and do the same.

Comment by Beaner Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 3:35 pm
Duckworth is a flawed candidate. She should drop out of the race.

Comment by The Velour Nail Tuesday, Aug 4, 15 @ 4:25 pm
When a court dismisses a case without prejudice, it typically means that a plaintiff has the right to revise their complaint and pleadings and refile the lawsuit. It is intellectually dishonest for Duckworth’s campaign to state the lawsuit was dismissed multiple times as if there had been a ruling on the merits. In the state courts, there seems to have been some recognition that there was a potentially viable claim present, but the plaintiffs need to improve their pleadings.

Comment by Under Further Review Wednesday, Aug 5, 15 @ 5:11 am