Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

“They want us to be afraid to come forward”

Posted in:

Illinois

* This Tribune story got lost in the shuffle yesterday with all the Tim Mapes coverage…

House Speaker Michael Madigan’s legal team on Tuesday asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a former campaign worker who alleged she lost a chance to move up in the powerful Democratic leader’s political organization because she reported that a top aide sexually harassed her.

The request was made as part of a court filing in which the Madigan-chaired Democratic Party of Illinois denied a series of allegations brought by Alaina Hampton. She contends she was retaliated against after she lodged complaints that Madigan lieutenant Kevin Quinn harassed her through phone calls and inappropriate texts. […]

In the Tuesday response to the suit, Madigan’s legal team contended Hampton had failed to establish that an “employment relationship existed” between her and the party during the “relevant time period.” Hampton has said she was harassed by Kevin Quinn during the 2016 campaign season and up through the time she spoke to Ald. Quinn in February 2017.

The speaker’s lawyers said Hampton was paid for limited time periods in 2012 from a political fund controlled by Madigan’s House Democrats, for a time in 2014 from the speaker’s own political fund, and again in 2016 from both of the funds.

* I asked Hampton for a response…

“Speaker Madigan’s legal team has been searching for ways to undermine and discredit me and my story since day one–so their motion to dismiss should come as no surprise.

“So much for the Speaker’s empty words praising my courage in coming forward. For all of his talk about taking responsibility and demanding accountability for those around him, it’s clear that their primary goal is to protect their own grip on power–at all costs.

“The Speaker’s legal strategy is a clear effort to send a message to me and other women. They want us to be afraid to come forward. They want us to continue to fear that people will think our experiences are invalid. But the fact is, it is now clear to everyone that harassment in the Speaker’s organization is pervasive and systemic.

“To other victims–don’t let this motion to dismiss discourage you. Now is the time for women to say we won’t tolerate it any longer.”

* Related…

* Madigan opposes release of 2014 IG report discussing clout, says not relevant to suit over ’sham candidates’

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 2:22 pm

Comments

Has Hampton ever suggested she’d be satisfied under any scenario in which Madigan remains Speaker?

Comment by Anon Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 2:34 pm
=Legal team on Tuesday asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit.=

Repugnant as it is, this is standard process for how the state handles nearly all non-sexual whistleblower and human rights claims.

They fight them from beginning to end hoping the victim will drop them (most do).

Comment by Duopoly Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 2:38 pm
Let’s see.

Tuesday–Judge is asked to dismiss a certain case.

Wednesday– All heck breaks loose in Springfield.

Maybe it’s just a coincidence. Or maybe women are beyond fed up with “the culture”.

Comment by Responsa Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 2:43 pm
And if the Speaker’s legal team is accurate on the law and facts in this case, due respect requires that they concede and pay whatever damages Ms. Hampton demands? Madigan must meekly place his head into the guillotine to satisfy Ms. Hampton? This is feeling more and more like retribution than redress.

Comment by Undiscovered country Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 2:44 pm
Those who wish to post comments regarding this filing please stick with the merits of said response.

I am interested in an opinion based upon facts and the law….not someones likes or dislikes for Madigan.

Comment by MOON Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 2:46 pm
So, on one hand, they Speaker’s office is appalled at sexual harassment, but on the other fights the opportunity to make her whole.

Ok.

Comment by Grasshopper Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 2:48 pm
Ms. Hampton is brave to her story made public and deserves the benefit, not only of the doubt, but the benefit to be believed. And I believe her.

I am interested to know if she would ever entertain settling the case, and if so, under what terms? In other words, how far is she taking this and what does she want to see as a result?

Comment by Colin O'Scopy Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 2:49 pm
Took me a minute to find the complaint and the judge, who is a female Obama appointee.

from the complaint — “Ms. Hampton provided Ms.X with hard copies of all the sexually harassing text messages she received from Kevin Quinn and asked Ms.X to share them with Speaker Madigan.”

And, “Upon information and belief, the Madigan Defendants, the Democratic Majority
and the 13th Ward Democratic Organization, have ignored and/or disregarded other reports of
sexual harassment of female employees and volunteers working for the Madigan Defendants.”

It will be “notable” whether the case is allowed to proceed, and if so, discovery and trial will begin to pull back the curtain…

Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 2:51 pm
–Those who wish to post comments regarding this filing please stick with the merits of said response.

I am interested in an opinion based upon facts and the law….not someones likes or dislikes for Madigan.–

Who are you, the judge?

Geez, you guys seem incapable of learning. If you don’t know your crew in on trial in the court of public opinion, there’s no helping you.

Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 2:57 pm
This case will probably hinge on two items, exact timing and employment status. And employment status may be the most important, whether she was an employee or a individual contractor.

Comment by RNUG Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 2:58 pm
You gotta love the arrogance of MJM ! He illegally get the files on a pardoned individual but he will fight like heck to keep the evidence of his organizations dirty tricks and patronage hidden in an IG report.

Comment by Texas Red Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 3:04 pm
all the hand-wringing ignores the fact that this is a lawsuit.
madigan’s team, arguing there is no basis for her to sue because she was not an actual employee, is making legal argument.
Hampton is making an emotional argument that has no foundation in law.

Comment by jim Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 3:13 pm
Lawyers always do stuff like this at the beginning of cases. It doesn’t diminish the credibility of any victim. Shouldn’t discourage anybody from coming forward.

Comment by walker Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 3:18 pm
WORD

Thanks for your words of wisdom. It really makes it so much easier for me to understand the issues./S

Comment by MOON Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 3:19 pm
We have to hope the Ms. Hampton expects to do more than just unseat Madigan. Bullies/Power brokers seek that edge over others because it can be exploited. We don’t have any stats yet that show us they were we to pick women for those positions they would not also exploit them and be motivated by power and sex. Our current system is flawed to the degree it reflects how most people react to power. What exactly are we “progressing” toward.

Comment by Matt Vernau Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 3:19 pm
Just by going by what’s posted and linked here, defending based on a lack of an employment relationship will only go so far. It might get some of the defendant organizations off the hook for certain parts of the allegations, but the bottom line is she was working for some entity or another at each relevant time and being paid for it. The defendants may get a partial victory here but not a complete one.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 3:20 pm
From reading the actual motion to dismiss (and not the Trib article, which does not make the point clear), the motion is to dismiss DPI as a party to the suit because Alaina was not an employee of DPI, but was paid from Friends of MJM and Democratic Majority.

That’s much different than what the Trib article appears to be outlining.

Comment by Juice Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 3:32 pm
Word is absolutely correct. The court of public opinion is the critical judge here.

I can only imagine the Rauner ad that highlights Madigan’s #2 being canned for harassment, as MJM is seeking to have another case dismissed…..one that he demanded accountability.

If you have to explain the nuances of a court action in a 30 second commercial you’ve already lost the battle.

Comment by Downstate Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 3:36 pm
This is a link to the complaint, Hampton VS DPI et al.

The employment argument was preemptively addressed.

https://chicagotonight.wttw.com/sites/default/files/article/file-attachments/Complaint_3.21.18.01.pdf

(watch for the pdf download)

Comment by anon this time Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 3:48 pm
Litigation is an adversarial process, not tea and cookies.
Everyone who is wronged has the absolute right to sue, and should. It is the cleanest and least conflicted way to both be heard and to attain a just remedy.
Justice is precise, deliberative, often intrusive, and relies upon an adversarial system that ensures both sides are protected from bias or collusion and that both sides are fairly heard and zealously represented.
Suggesting that a defendant lay back and not submit motions is wrong and serves to undermine required process.

Comment by Northsider (the original) Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 3:57 pm
“They want us to be afraid to come forward. They want us to continue to fear that people will think our experiences are invalid.” Yep.

Comment by Anon0091 Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 3:57 pm
“Litigation is an adversarial process, not tea and cookies. Everyone who is wronged has the absolute right to sue, and……”

Yup. Put some cute graphics with that, along with a catchy tune, pare it down to 30 seconds and it is sure to win a Cleo. /s/

Comment by Downstate Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 4:11 pm
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey, you just don’t get it. Maybe she was an employee maybe she wasn’t. Who cares.

She was harassed by one of your minions. You loose even if you win.

Comment by Leave a Light on George Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 4:41 pm
I’m not sure of the technical items of employment here, but she was an employee of the madigan empire, it’s just with which division of the empire she was employed by at the time. Surely the court would take that into consideration.

Comment by Ahoy! Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 4:50 pm
@Ahoy!

Sorry man, but I think “Blame Madigan!” Is already taken.

Comment by Juvenal Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 5:04 pm
Is alaina’s 15 minutes up yet

Comment by Anon Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 5:51 pm
==Those who wish to post comments regarding this filing please stick with the merits of said response.==

Did Rich take the day off and leave you in charge? I don’t think so. For a lot of reasons.

Comment by A guy Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 5:54 pm
==Is alaina’s 15 minutes up yet==

Read the comments Plato. I don’t think so.

What’s more time? Your idea of 15 minutes, or anyone else’s of “a day” in court?

Comment by A guy Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 5:57 pm
Because Madigan.

Comment by Justacitizen Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 8:33 pm
Madigan running out of people to fire.

Comment by Soapbox Derby Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 8:38 pm
@soapbox;
Brown looks nervously around the room.

Comment by Rutro Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 9:19 pm
2 questions re. the case —
Ms. Hampton said she asked Ald. Quinn to not punish Kevin Quinn? Thought she said something like this. Please note, I support her coming forward, I just don’t understand why the huge news conference, court case, etc. If she asked specifically NOT to punish Kevin Quinn at the time, and Ald. Quinn kept it low-key, why then be upset later that more wasn’t done to him?

Also, if she wasn’t fired, unfortunately, I think it will be difficult to prove any damage. This law should be changed.

Comment by Oy Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 9:23 pm
So much for the Speaker caring about the victims. but rather wants to point out that the House Democratic campaign organization is TOTALLY separate from the House Democratic government organization.

Yeah, right.

Comment by Just Me Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 10:57 pm
Kind of strange to throw in another link to the Tim Mapes coverage when the point of the lead is to highlight a story that got lost in all the Tim Mapes coverage

Comment by NW Post Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 11:22 pm
The articles I read said that DPI moved to dismiss the case. Quinn did not work for DPI. Could that be part of this story?

Comment by Hyperbolic Chamber Thursday, Jun 7, 18 @ 11:23 pm
Seems to me that there Hampton has nothing here, but continuously keeps bringing things back up.

Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jun 8, 18 @ 2:14 pm