Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Leona Nelson Sues to Reinstate Case Against Crystal Lake Park District - Court Motion
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 22ND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
McHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS
LEONA NELSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No.:
)
CRYSTAL LAKE PARK DISTRICT, )
)
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, LEONA NELSON, by her attorney MARK W. DANIEL of RATHJE & WOODWARD, LLC., states the following as her Reinstated Amended Complaint against Defendant:
1. Plaintiff is an adult individual who resides in the City of Crystal Lake, McHenry County, Illinois.
2. Defendant is a municipal corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal office located in Crystal Lake, McHenry County, Illinois.
3. This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for a deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights.
4. Plaintiff was previously elected to the office of Park Commissioner in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois.
5. Plaintiff’s term of office expired on or about May 1, 2001 and at all times relevant hereto Plaintiff was a duly elected Park Commissioner and was entitled to act in that capacity. Specifically, but not by way of limitation, the Illinois Park Code provides that Commissioners shall serve until their successors are elected and qualified. 70 ILCS 1205/2-12.
6. On April 5, 2001, a meeting of the Crystal Lake Park District Commissioners was convened. At that meeting, the Commissioners present voted to censure Plaintiff for certain alleged acts committed by Plaintiff. Those alleged acts included the purported release of executive session material and the purported making of comments toward a Park District employee. The censure imposed by the Commissioners was a one meeting suspension.
7. Conducting the meeting and voting to censure Plaintiff for the alleged conduct was done under the color of the statutes of the State of Illinois.
8. The Illinois Park District Code sets forth the powers of a park district operating in the State of Illinois, including Defendant. The Park District Code establishes that Defendant has the power to pass all necessary ordinances, rules and regulations for the proper management and conduct of the business of the board and district. 70 ILCS 1205/8-1.
9. On December 21, 2000, Defendant adopted the Crystal Lake Park District Policy Manual. Said Manual purportedly adopted regulations pertaining to the conduct of Defendants employees and elected officials. A copy of said Manual is attached as Exhibit A. Section 2.02 provides for the imposition of sanctions against Commissioners and provides:
11. The conduct of Defendant was contrary to its adopted policy and was therefore contrary to and in violation of the Park District Code as an action that was not authorized by a duly adopted rule or regulation.
12. Under the law of the State of Illinois, there is no remedy available against a member of a public body who discloses information discussed during a closed meeting or an executive session.
13. Even if the release of executive session material by Plaintiff occurred, there is no legal basis for the imposition of a penalty against Plaintiff. Under the policy of Defendant, the conduct of a Commissioner must be “inappropriate” before a sanction can be imposed. Because Illinois law does not provide a remedy against a member of a public body who discloses information discussed in an executive session, Defendant’s sanction of Plaintiff for allegedly doing so is in violation of State law and is contrary to the authority conferred upon Defendant under the Park District Code.
14. Section 10.05 of the Park District Code identifies and defines what acts constitute sexual harassment. Despite being aware of the fact that what constituted the alleged harassing conduct, Defendant accused Plaintiff of creating an “intimidating, offensive or hostile work environment”.
15. For a hostile environment to exist, the conduct must be sexual in nature and must involve more than one incident. Neither of these criteria existed, yet Defendant imposed the censure.
16. The alleged conduct of Plaintiff did not violate the Manual of Defendant and could not therefore be found to be inappropriate. As such, the sanction imposed was contrary to the Manual and was therefore in violation of the authority conferred upon Defendant by the Park District Code.
17. Defendant exceeded the authority conferred upon it under the Park District Code and in so doing deprived Plaintiff of her statutory obligation to serve as a Commissioner until her successor was elected and qualified.
18. Defendant announced the censure against Plaintiff at a meeting of the Park Commissioners, included the censure in the minutes of the Defendant and otherwise disseminated that information to the public.
19. Plaintiff has resided in the City of Crystal Lake for in excess of fifty years and is generally well-regarded in the community.
20. The imposition of the censure and the dissemination of the alleged reasons for it have caused Plaintiff great embarrassment and humiliation in the community. As an example, but not by way of limitation, Plaintiff has been married for over fifty years and has been subjected to the wrongful publication and assertion by Defendant that she has sexually harassed a male employee of Defendant.
21. Contrary to its policy obligation of discussing the “inappropriate” behavior in Executive Session, Defendant announced not only the sanction imposed against Plaintiff but also announced the asserted reason including providing the name of the allegedly harassed individual and detailed the alleged conduct of Plaintiff all of which was subsequently published in the area new media.
22. The censure further deprived Plaintiff of her statutory right to serve in her capacity as a duly elected public official and deprived Plaintiff of her right to represent the interests of her constituents as required by the Illinois Park District Code.
23. A party who has sustained a deprivation of rights under Section 1983 is entitled to recover attorney fees against the party who has committed the violation.
24. Under 735 ILCS 5/13-217, this suit is a reinstatement of McHenry County Case No. 2001 LA 300 which was voluntarily dismissed on April 12, 2006.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, LEONA NELSON, prays for the entry of a judgement in her favor and against Defendant in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 plus cost and reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988.
Respectfully submitted,
LEONA NELSON.
____________________________________
One of Her Attorneys
Mark W. Daniel, Esq.
RATHJE & WOODWARD, LLC.
300 East Roosevelt Road
Suite 300
Wheaton, Illinois 60187
(630) 668-8500
ARDC No. 6226696
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 22ND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
McHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS
LEONA NELSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No.:
)
CRYSTAL LAKE PARK DISTRICT, )
)
Defendant. )
RULE 222(B) AFFIRMATION
Plaintiff, LEONA NELSON, by her attorney, states that the damages being sought in this case exceed $50,000.00, plus costs and fees. This will be supplemented with a new affidavit due to adverse weather conditions that made it impossible to coordinate this.
____________________________________
LEONA NELSON, by her attorney and to be supplemented due to weather conditions
Mark W. Daniel, Esq.
RATHJE & WOODWARD, LLC.
300 East Roosevelt Road
Suite 300
Wheaton, Illinois 60187
(630) 668-8500
ARDC No. 6226696
McHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS
LEONA NELSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No.:
)
CRYSTAL LAKE PARK DISTRICT, )
)
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, LEONA NELSON, by her attorney MARK W. DANIEL of RATHJE & WOODWARD, LLC., states the following as her Reinstated Amended Complaint against Defendant:
1. Plaintiff is an adult individual who resides in the City of Crystal Lake, McHenry County, Illinois.
2. Defendant is a municipal corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois with its principal office located in Crystal Lake, McHenry County, Illinois.
3. This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 for a deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights.
4. Plaintiff was previously elected to the office of Park Commissioner in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois.
5. Plaintiff’s term of office expired on or about May 1, 2001 and at all times relevant hereto Plaintiff was a duly elected Park Commissioner and was entitled to act in that capacity. Specifically, but not by way of limitation, the Illinois Park Code provides that Commissioners shall serve until their successors are elected and qualified. 70 ILCS 1205/2-12.
6. On April 5, 2001, a meeting of the Crystal Lake Park District Commissioners was convened. At that meeting, the Commissioners present voted to censure Plaintiff for certain alleged acts committed by Plaintiff. Those alleged acts included the purported release of executive session material and the purported making of comments toward a Park District employee. The censure imposed by the Commissioners was a one meeting suspension.
7. Conducting the meeting and voting to censure Plaintiff for the alleged conduct was done under the color of the statutes of the State of Illinois.
8. The Illinois Park District Code sets forth the powers of a park district operating in the State of Illinois, including Defendant. The Park District Code establishes that Defendant has the power to pass all necessary ordinances, rules and regulations for the proper management and conduct of the business of the board and district. 70 ILCS 1205/8-1.
9. On December 21, 2000, Defendant adopted the Crystal Lake Park District Policy Manual. Said Manual purportedly adopted regulations pertaining to the conduct of Defendants employees and elected officials. A copy of said Manual is attached as Exhibit A. Section 2.02 provides for the imposition of sanctions against Commissioners and provides:
If the conduct of a commissioner is deemed by a fellow commissioner to be inappropriate, the board may discuss this behavior in Executive Session with the commissioner. If such actions do not cease, sanctions may be placed upon the commissioner, by a 2/3 vote, if he/she is found to be violating this section of policy. Sanctions may be in the form of meeting suspensions or monetary penalties.10. If the policy of Defendant is a valid exercise of its authority under the Park Code, prior to suspending Plaintiff for one meeting, Defendant was required to discuss the asserted inappropriate conduct with Plaintiff in executive session. Defendant did not discuss the asserted inappropriate conduct with Plaintiff in executive session and instead voted to summarily suspend Plaintiff.
11. The conduct of Defendant was contrary to its adopted policy and was therefore contrary to and in violation of the Park District Code as an action that was not authorized by a duly adopted rule or regulation.
12. Under the law of the State of Illinois, there is no remedy available against a member of a public body who discloses information discussed during a closed meeting or an executive session.
13. Even if the release of executive session material by Plaintiff occurred, there is no legal basis for the imposition of a penalty against Plaintiff. Under the policy of Defendant, the conduct of a Commissioner must be “inappropriate” before a sanction can be imposed. Because Illinois law does not provide a remedy against a member of a public body who discloses information discussed in an executive session, Defendant’s sanction of Plaintiff for allegedly doing so is in violation of State law and is contrary to the authority conferred upon Defendant under the Park District Code.
14. Section 10.05 of the Park District Code identifies and defines what acts constitute sexual harassment. Despite being aware of the fact that what constituted the alleged harassing conduct, Defendant accused Plaintiff of creating an “intimidating, offensive or hostile work environment”.
15. For a hostile environment to exist, the conduct must be sexual in nature and must involve more than one incident. Neither of these criteria existed, yet Defendant imposed the censure.
16. The alleged conduct of Plaintiff did not violate the Manual of Defendant and could not therefore be found to be inappropriate. As such, the sanction imposed was contrary to the Manual and was therefore in violation of the authority conferred upon Defendant by the Park District Code.
17. Defendant exceeded the authority conferred upon it under the Park District Code and in so doing deprived Plaintiff of her statutory obligation to serve as a Commissioner until her successor was elected and qualified.
18. Defendant announced the censure against Plaintiff at a meeting of the Park Commissioners, included the censure in the minutes of the Defendant and otherwise disseminated that information to the public.
19. Plaintiff has resided in the City of Crystal Lake for in excess of fifty years and is generally well-regarded in the community.
20. The imposition of the censure and the dissemination of the alleged reasons for it have caused Plaintiff great embarrassment and humiliation in the community. As an example, but not by way of limitation, Plaintiff has been married for over fifty years and has been subjected to the wrongful publication and assertion by Defendant that she has sexually harassed a male employee of Defendant.
21. Contrary to its policy obligation of discussing the “inappropriate” behavior in Executive Session, Defendant announced not only the sanction imposed against Plaintiff but also announced the asserted reason including providing the name of the allegedly harassed individual and detailed the alleged conduct of Plaintiff all of which was subsequently published in the area new media.
22. The censure further deprived Plaintiff of her statutory right to serve in her capacity as a duly elected public official and deprived Plaintiff of her right to represent the interests of her constituents as required by the Illinois Park District Code.
23. A party who has sustained a deprivation of rights under Section 1983 is entitled to recover attorney fees against the party who has committed the violation.
24. Under 735 ILCS 5/13-217, this suit is a reinstatement of McHenry County Case No. 2001 LA 300 which was voluntarily dismissed on April 12, 2006.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, LEONA NELSON, prays for the entry of a judgement in her favor and against Defendant in an amount in excess of $50,000.00 plus cost and reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §1988.
Respectfully submitted,
LEONA NELSON.
____________________________________
One of Her Attorneys
Mark W. Daniel, Esq.
RATHJE & WOODWARD, LLC.
300 East Roosevelt Road
Suite 300
Wheaton, Illinois 60187
(630) 668-8500
ARDC No. 6226696
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 22ND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
McHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS
LEONA NELSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No.:
)
CRYSTAL LAKE PARK DISTRICT, )
)
Defendant. )
RULE 222(B) AFFIRMATION
Plaintiff, LEONA NELSON, by her attorney, states that the damages being sought in this case exceed $50,000.00, plus costs and fees. This will be supplemented with a new affidavit due to adverse weather conditions that made it impossible to coordinate this.
____________________________________
LEONA NELSON, by her attorney and to be supplemented due to weather conditions
Mark W. Daniel, Esq.
RATHJE & WOODWARD, LLC.
300 East Roosevelt Road
Suite 300
Wheaton, Illinois 60187
(630) 668-8500
ARDC No. 6226696
Labels: Crystal Lake Park District, Executive Session, Leona Nelson, Sexual Harrassment
# posted by Cal Skinner : 7:22 PM
