Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: “The harder you work, the luckier you get”
Next Post: Open thread
Posted in:
* Tribune…
Attorneys for Democratic Gov.-elect J.B. Pritzker on Friday called a federal lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in his campaign “long on accusations and short on factual allegations” and asked a judge to dismiss it. […]
The governor-elect’s attorneys made note of the lawsuit’s timing in their request for it be dismissed.
“Plaintiffs filed this suit on the eve of a hotly contested election and provided it to the press before serving it on the campaign,” the attorneys wrote. “Indeed, plaintiffs have still not served the campaign.”
Pritzker’s lawyers argued that the suit included “mischaracterizations, distortions, and outright falsehoods.”
* Sun-Times…
“Everyone has the right to file a lawsuit, but everyone must plead plausible claims for relief. The Complaint is notably full of sweeping legal conclusions, overheated rhetoric, and rank speculation,” lawyers for Pritzker’s campaign wrote in the U.S. District Court filing.
“But what is most notable is what the Complaint does not contain — factual allegations demonstrating that Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are plausible,” the filing says.
The filing calls the accusations “baseless,” saying there are no facts to back up allegations of an adverse employment action because of race; being fired, demoted or paid less because of race; having a race-based hostile work environment; or anyone being subjected to “severe or pervasive harassment because of his or her race.” […]
The filing goes piece by piece in dissecting some of the allegations, while calling them “bald conclusions” and “a hodgepodge of irrelevant or vague statements.”
* Remember the staffer who claimed she’d been placed in a hotel in an “unsafe” part of Peoria? The campaign produced receipts showing they’d tried to accommodate her with other rooms. From the recent campaign filing…
In any event, Ms. Calhoun’s claim appears to be premised on her view that the hotel the Campaign paid for was not in a sufficiently swanky neighborhood.
Ouch.
* Another bit…
Just because they are “unhappy” with their jobs does not mean they have pleaded an “actionable adverse action.”
* One more…
With regard to Celia Colón, Plaintiffs allege that during a “mandatory cultural sensitivity training on September 12, 2018,” … “[w]hen Celia tried to ask a question, the training director instructed the person with the microphone not to give it to her.” No further details are provided. Plaintiffs do not allege that this had anything to do with Ms. Colón’s race as opposed to, by way of example, that the presentation had already been extended by an hour and it was necessary to move to the next training session.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 9:52 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: “The harder you work, the luckier you get”
Next Post: Open thread
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Has anyone seen the alleged racial epitaphs? Racism is bad enough without insulting the deceased.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 10:01 am
Watching West Wing and House of Cards on Netflix in your hotel in Peoria, than having to knock doors for ten hours and call to find volunteers. Reality and Hollywood are two different things.
Comment by Almost the weekend Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 10:09 am
There is no longer a reason for this lawsuit and it will go away with a whimper.
Comment by Henry Francis Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 10:20 am
The strategy to win a motion to dismiss is usually to show that the complaint is legally insufficient, not baseless. If the judge thinks there is a plausible basis for the complaint, he should rule against the motion to dismiss. The passages makes it seem like the Pritzker campaign is saying to lawsuit is not factually accurate, which sounds like a dispute of fact between them and the plaintiffs, i.e. the suit should not be dismissed.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 10:49 am
The staffers certainly stuck their necks out. But the actual lawsuit that was filed is a raging dumpster fire of incoherence.
Hard to believe it was drafted by real lawyers. You see more professional work from convicts representing themselves, passing their time by filing lawsuits.
If the plaintiffs truly believe they have actionable beefs, they should fire their current lawyers, hire some competent ones and refile.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 10:58 am
==The strategy to win a motion to dismiss is usually to show that the complaint is legally insufficient, not baseless.==
The plaintiffs never served the defendants. You can’t get more insufficient than that.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 11:04 am
3D Checkers - close but some nuance is required. There are reasons to file a Motion to Dismiss based on factual issues. Specifically, where there is an opportunity to point out factual discrepancies that can be affirmatively disproved and also show that the Plaintiffs may lack the ability to plead fact sufficiently to ever state their case, you may choose to air our those concerns early to avoid having to undergo the expense of discovery.
Comment by Recovering Former State Employee Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 11:32 am
These plaintiffs obviously have issues.
Comment by Name/Nickname/Anon Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 11:34 am
RFSE, that sounds more like the Illinois 2-619 (I think that is the right section) standard more than the R. 12(b)(6) federal standard that I am assuming the motion was filed under. In fact, even with the most pro se plaintiffs, it is really hard to win a 12(b)(6) motion, and the ones you win are almost all without prejudice, meaning plaintiff can file an amended complaint.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 11:42 am
My guess is that they will becallowed to refile.
Itvis not enough to say “I was not allowed to speak, and also I am Latina.”
You have to argue you were not allowed to speak because you were Latina, or at the very least, no Latinx were allowed to speak.
Comment by Thomas Paine Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 11:43 am
@3D checkers: haven’t read the motion yet, but it’s fair to request dismissal for failure to state a claim. Is that where respondents are going?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 11:47 am
I’m not accusing Pritzker of any misconduct in filing the motion to dismiss. I just think, from reading the passages above, that a lot of judges would be less likely to rule for Pritzker after reading the passages. I think a more toned down approach would be better strategically. Also, practically, no judge wants to be overturned on this matter on appeal.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 12:01 pm
Sounds like some staffers anticipated/expected a Cadillac because Pritzker is loaded, and were disappointed when they got a Ford instead.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 12:11 pm
@Cubs: A Ford? So far, they got bupkis.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 2:37 pm
I was referring to the staffer who felt her campaign-provided accommodations were substandard.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 3:06 pm
Point of interest: At least one of the attorneys for the Plaintiffs in this case is also suing the IHSA and others over the refereeing in the Simeon - Nazareth football playoff game.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 3:36 pm
if only IL had a chance at tort reform and repercussions for frivolous lawsuits!!! Irony at its best.
Comment by taxedoutwest Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 3:38 pm
=Point of interest: At least one of the attorneys for the Plaintiffs in this case is also suing the IHSA and others over the refereeing in the Simeon - Nazareth football playoff game.=
What a waste of time and money. The courts are pretty clear on that one, they don’t get involved.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 3:47 pm
@taxedoutwest. The lawsuit was filed in federal, not state, court. In any event, Illinois judges have the ability to impose sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137.
Comment by Bourbon Street Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 3:56 pm
@Cubs: Yeah, they’re claiming that plaintiffs haven’t stated an actionable claim. So the judge could give plaintiffs some time to refile, to clarify an allegation that the Campaign actually did something in violation of a statute, but since they’ve already refiled, that might be tricky. Could go either way at this stage.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Nov 19, 18 @ 6:29 pm