Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Ives says she won’t file petitions today
Next Post: Pritzker, others file petitions
Posted in:
* Tribune…
A sexual harassment lawsuit that tanked the political career of former state Treasurer Dan Rutherford was dismissed Wednesday in federal court in Chicago.
Court records show both sides agreed to end the 3½-year-old action. U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow dismissed the case “without prejudice” — meaning the plaintiff, former Rutherford employee Edmund Michalowski, can return to court with a fresh complaint.
Filed just weeks before the 2014 Republican primary for governor, the lawsuit sent Rutherford spiraling from leading contender against the independently wealthy Bruce Rauner — now governor — to an also-ran in a field of four. […]
In May 2016, Rutherford’s successor, Democrat Michael Frerichs, released to The Associated Press a previously confidential investigation into the allegations. The report by Ron Braver & Associates, hired by Rutherford when he was made aware of Michalowski’s allegations, found no evidence of harassment or retaliation.
The Braver report contended that “rumors that Mr. Michalowski may be let go from the treasurer’s office after the primary elections play a role in coming forward with these serious allegations and the allegations appear to be released to influence his current election.”
* Sun-Times…
Michalowski’s attorney, Dana Kurtz, condemned the review, saying it “leaves out substantial information.” She said her client sued because he and other young men were being harassed by Rutherford, and he wanted it to stop.
Three other former Rutherford employees sued him in 2015 in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging they were fired because they backed up Michalowski’s story. That suit was dismissed in Rutherford’s favor last August.
The Chicago Sun-Times previously reported that the two lawsuits against Rutherford had cost Illinois taxpayers more than $500,000.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:16 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Ives says she won’t file petitions today
Next Post: Pritzker, others file petitions
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
One of Michalowski’s former lawyers (Christine Svenson) is preparing to run for Circuit Court Judge in the Cook County’s 13th Subcircuit.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:20 am
I’ve heard rumors from serious people that Rauner’s campaign was the force that made this public. Very possible he stole the primary with dirty tactics.
Comment by Phil King Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:30 am
Correction: The parties filed a stipulation to dismiss. The Court has not dismissed the case.
Comment by Anon E. Moose Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 9:44 am
=Very possible he stole the primary with dirty tactics.=
“Very possible” is quite the understatement.
Comment by m Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 10:02 am
==“Very possible” is quite the understatement.==
Is there a smoking gun I’m unaware of?
Comment by Phil King Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 10:07 am
I'’me always wondered about this, as this type of tactic is used with guilty and innocent candidates. Could come back to bite someone.
Comment by Barrington Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 10:42 am
Not buying it…
Know folks that worked for him and weren’t surprised at the allegations…
Comment by Loop Lady Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 11:19 am
In this #MeToo era, Rutherford was smart to settle this before letting it go to trial.
Comment by Lost in Chicago Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 12:34 pm
Lost in Chicago, read the post again. There was no “settlement.” The parties agreed to recommend that the case be dismissed.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 2:36 pm
Arthur Andersen - If you want to believe that after all of this time both parties just showed up in court one day and agreed to dismiss this case and move on, keep thinking that. I’m going to bet there was some agreement behind the scenes where both sides agreed to settle the case first.
Comment by Lost in Chicago Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 3:13 pm
In four years there has been no proof presented regarding any of the allegations. The case brought by the claimed witnesses was dismissed. The private detective report was clean. This appears to me to be a situation where the plaintiff, having exacted the desired fatal damage to Rutherford’s candidacy, has now exhausted his resources to litigate and needs to end the process. It is also possible that he wishes to limit exposure to financial sanctions for having filed a suit without factual basis.
Comment by chad Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 3:49 pm
On its face, it makes no sense to stipulate (i.e. agree) to dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE (which means leave open the possibility of refiling suit, as indicated) if you have concurrently settled.
Comment by wiseguy Monday, Nov 27, 17 @ 5:26 pm