Whats New

Illinois Police Officer Files Reverse Race Discrimination against Village of University Park

Chicago – October 2nd, 2015 – A long-time police officer has filed a lawsuit against the Village of University Park, alleging he was repeatedly denied promotion opportunities to Chief of Police in place of less qualified African-American officers (filing attached).

Represented by Eugene K. Hollander of The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander, the plaintiff, Daniel Murphy, who is age 47 and resides in Beecher, Illinois, claims he was unfairly discriminated against for being Caucasian. Murphy began his employment as a police officer with University Park in January 1992 after being honorably discharged from the United States Air Force.

One discrimination occasion includes when Murphy applied for the position of Chief of Police in the fall of 2011. Of the three officers who applied from within University Park Police Department, Murphy was the only Caucasian applicant and the only applicant who did not receive an interview for the position.

The position of Chief of Police was then given to Melvin Davis, a less senior, less experienced and less qualified African-American male. The Mayor of University Park, Vivian Covington, unilaterally appointed Davis to the position of Chief, despite the fact that the committee conducting the hiring process had not named him as a finalist.

Murphy continued to face similar discrimination over the years that followed. His final attempt at being promoted to Chief of Police was in July 2015 when, despite being the most senior and most qualified applicant, Murphy was again denied the position of Chief of Police. It was instead given to a less experienced, less qualified, African-American male, John Pate, who is 15 years his junior and went on to demote Murphy twice soon after his appointment.

Murphy’s lawyer, Eugene K. Hollander, says: “By denying Daniel Murphy an interview for the Chief of Police position and passing him over for a less qualified African-American applicants on numerous occasions, and by creating, condoning, and perpetuating an environment by which the terms and conditions of employment differ for members of a protected class, University Park has intentionally discriminated against him.”

Click Here to listen to Attorney Eugene K. Hollander on a CBS radio interview

Note to editors

Eugene K. Hollander and Daniel Murphy are available for interview about this discrimination lawsuit. To organize an interview or for further information about this case, please contact Stephanie Reed on stephanie@gossipgenie.com or 773 880-1012.

Related News Stories:

CBS Chicago – White Officer Files Racial Discrimination Suit After Being Passed Over For University Park Police Chief Job

Chicago Tribune – University Park Cop Sues Village For Alleged Racial Bias

 

Defrocked Priest, Daniel McCormack, Set to Appear at Civil Trial Hearing for the First Time

Chicago – October 1st, 2015 – A judge today granted a motion to require Daniel McCormack to attend a trial hearing in one of the countless civil lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Chicago related to his alleged sexual abuse of minors.

Eugene K. Hollander of The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollanderwho is representing the plaintiff in this case, says: “No judge has entered this kind of order until now, so I’m pleased that we’re a step closer to getting justice for my client. He, like all of the other victims, is emotionally and mentally scarred by what McCormack allegedly did to him when he was young. The evidence will show that the Archdiocese of Chicago received many warnings about McCormack’s behavior at the time, yet they continued to facilitate his access to vulnerable children.”

The plaintiff, ‘John Doe’, alleges he was abused by McCormack when he attended St. Agatha’s parish in third grade, between 2003 and 2004.

The trial start date will be decided at a hearing on October 6th 2015 before The Honorable Clare McWilliams at the Richard J. Daley Center in Cook County.

Eugene Hollander has represented five other victims who allege sexual abuse by McCormack. All of these claims have been settled with the Archdiocese of Chicago, including one for $1.25 million in May this year.

There are currently around 20 pending lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Chicago related to allegations of sexual abuse by its priests currently proceeding through litigation in Cook County.

Reidy

Bill Reidy led a troubled life and could not figure out why. In February of this year, during a doctor’s visit, things became crystal clear. He had repressed memories of sexual abuse by a Jesuit priest, Father Donald O’Shaughnessy. During the time that he attended Loyola Academy in the late 1970’s, the priest summoned the then student to his room. It was there that the cleric sexually assaulted Mr. Reidy on multiple occasions. After recovering his memories earlier this year, he shared his recollections with his family. With their support, and after retaining The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander, Mr. Reidy initiated his claim. Shortly after The Plaintiff initiated his claim, the priest died. During the course of the case, it was discovered that the priest allegedly abused a number of other boys. The Jesuits consented to mediating the claim, and the case settled for $750,000.

Employment Law

Federal Judge Allows Retaliatory Discharge Case to Proceed Against Steelmaker.

Howard Dean Beers was the Purchasing Manager for a division of Milwaukee-based E.R. Wagner in Brookfield, Wisconsin. The plaintiff contended that executives notified managers that it was going to provide industrial customers with stainless steel that had two percent less nickel than the steel currently used. According to Beers, executives told managers not to tell the customers about the change.

The plaintiff contended that the company fired him after he told executives that the new steel was more corrosive than the current steel and that failing to tell the customers would be deceitful. Beers claimed that the practice violated a number of state laws. The company sought to have the case thrown out, but the Court declined, reasoning that Beers’ actions invoked several state laws.

Illinois is an employment at-will state, meaning that generally, an employer may fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all. Exceptions to that rule involve anti-discrimination laws and claims for retaliatory discharge. Under the latter, an employer cannot fire an individual for pursuing protected activity as defined by Illinois law. The most classic example involves firing a worker who files a worker’s compensation claim.

Office News

Recently, Gina Smith left our office to become a Director of Human Resources for a company in Indiana. In an interesting sliding door event, we hired her husband, Bradley Smith, to take over her job. Brad looks forward to the opportunity to litigate a wide variety of civil claims.

About the author

Eugene Hollander is a trial attorney who currently heads his own law office in Chicago. Mr. Hollander has tried numerous cases in the state and federal courts. The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander is a full service law firm, concentrating its practice in employment discrimination claims, personal injury and medical malpractice suits, and various types of commercial litigation. For more information, visit our web site at www.eugenekhollanderlaw.com, or contact us directly at:

Legal Trends Focuses on Jail Suicide Case and Other Employment Law Victories.

In this issue of Legal Trends, we analyze a settlement in a civil rights case involving a jail suicide in Shelby County, Illinois. We also focus in on two other employment law cases with very successful resolutions.

Civil Rights Law

Hollander Law Offices Settles Jail Suicide Case for Record $350,000.

Jason Wayne Cox, Sr. had a troubled life, but was in the process of turning his life around when he was incarcerated on June 11, 2008.  Tragically for him and his survivors, Mr. Cox took his own life on June 21, 2008.  His estate filed suit in the federal court in Springfield, and on August 23, 2010, The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander obtained a record settlement of $350,000.

Jason grew up in a troubled home.  He had stated to social workers that his father physically abused him and that his mother emotionally neglected him.  Jason was divorced, but had an on and off relationship with Crystal Perks, the mother of his two children, now 7 and 17.  In 2006, Jason and Crystal broke up, and he moved to Mississippi.  Mr. Cox had abused a number of drugs, including marijuana, meth, cocaine and crack.  In January, 2008, Mr. Cox had a suicide attempt when he walked down the street and tried to get hit by a car.

In May, 2008, Jason returned to Shelbyville, Shelby County, Illinois.  Upon his return, Jason went to live with Crystal, her friend, Kelly, and Kelly’s parents, Nancy and Jack Schurman.  Jason had just secured employment with International Paper and required a pair of work boots to start his job.

On June 11, Jason requested $50 from Jack Schurman so he could purchase the boots, but Mr. Schurman refused.  A dispute ensued, and the police were called.  Jason was arrested and charged with criminal trespass to property, and was transported to the Shelby County Detention Center.  That was the last time that Crystal saw the father of her children.

Upon his incarceration, a correctional officer completed a Suicide Prevention Screening Form and a mental health intake form.  The officer documented Jason’s previous suicide attempt and further noted that Jason had a prior psychiatric history, and that he was “bi-polar/depressed.”  The officer recorded that Jason lacked family and friends in the community and had a history of alcohol and drug abuse.  The officer found that Mr. Cox was agitated and distraught during his interview.

On June 13, 2008, Jason appeared before the Honorable Michael McHaney on his criminal trespass charge.  Jason had an outburst and swore before the judge.  The court sentenced him to six months for criminal contempt.  Because of his incarceration, Jason lost his job at International Paper.

After Jason returned from court, he acted very irrationally, was verbally abusive to the correctional officers and told Officer Adam Smith that he wanted to “kick his ass.”  While Jason was shackled, he tried to head butt Officer Smith and tried to kick another individual.  Chief McQueen of the Windsor Police Department, who happened to be at the detention center, tased Jason to subdue him.  Jason was transported to a padded cell.  Jason continued to be verbally abusive and head butted the cell, causing him to bleed.

The protocol of the Shelby County Detention Center is that once an inmate is placed into a padded cell, a social worker from a local agency is called in to evaluate that individual.  On that day, Cheryl Anne Woods came and evaluated Jason.  In conjunction with her evaluation, Ms. Woods completed a Suicide Prevention Assessment Form.
Ms. Woods recorded a history which reflected Jason’s prior suicide attempt.  In regard to his incarceration, Jason told Ms. Woods that he did not know “if he could stand it.”  Ms. Woods did not attempt to obtain Jason’s prior medical records, follow up with Jason after that date, nor did she advise the jail to increase its supervision of him.  Jason was then returned to his cell.  He was not placed on suicide watch.
Jason was placed in cell 128, which consisted of three separate pods, where each inmate slept.  The cell door had a small window, but a correctional officer looking through it could not see if Jason was in his pod.  One of Jason’s cellmates was David Mullins.

During his incarceration, Jason told Mullins, “that he was depressed a lot.”  On one occasion, Mullins witnessed Jason break down and cry for one half hour.  On June 21, 2008, Jason tried to call the Schurman residence but Nancy Schurman refused the call.  She indicated to the jail that she did not want Jason to call again.

Illinois law requires that the jail make personal observation of non-suicidal inmates every thirty minutes.  On June 21, 2008, the correctional officers scanned the bar code on the cell door at about 1:15 P.M., but did not make any visual or oral contact with Jason for over the next three and one half hours.  When the jail personnel were passing out dinner, Jason was found dead – he had hung himself with a sheet.

Jason’s estate filed suit against Shelby County, Sheriff Michael Miller, a number of correctional officers and Woods.  Jason’s estate claimed that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the U.S. Constitution. During the course of discovery, the estate’s lawyers learned that Sheriff Miller had repeatedly requested increased funding from the County to add correctional officers, but was turned down. Additionally, the Illinois Department of Corrections had cited the jail two months earlier for not providing 30 minute personal observations of  inmates.

The settlement was the largest for a jail suicide case arising out of this jurisdiction, according to the Cook County Jury Verdict Reporter, a service which tracks settlements and verdicts in the state.

Employment Law

D.C. Hairstylist Settles Harassment Suit for $7 million.

A Washington, D.C. hairstylist to the city’s elite, Andre Chreky, settled a sexual harassment case brought against him by a former employee for $7 million. The settlement came on the heels of another sexual harassment suit that was resolved earlier this year by another employee for $2.3 million.
Jennifer Thong, whose case was scheduled for trial, alleged that Chreky ripped her underwear off with such force that it left a bruise, and on another occasion, attempted to have forced sexual intercourse with her.  The women are not likely to get their money right away, however. Chreky filed for bankruptcy, and the former employees claims are now being litigated in bankruptcy court.

Chrysler Pipefitter Awarded $4.2 Million in Coworker Harassment Case.
On September 2, a federal court jury in Rockford awarded a factory worker $4.2 million for suffering from coworker harassment.  Otto May, a Jewish employee who emigrated from Cuba, presented evidence that his coworkers left messages like “Heil Hitler” on his locker and made disparaging remarks about his country of origin.  The verdict consisted of $709,000 in compensatory damages and $3.5 million in punitive damages.

Office News

Eugene K. Hollander has prepared an online seminar for Lawline, entitled, “Selecting the Employment Discrimination Case.”

About the author

Eugene Hollander is a trial attorney who currently heads his own law office in Chicago.  Mr. Hollander has tried numerous cases in the state and federal courts.  The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander is a full service law firm, concentrating its practice in employment discrimination claims, personal injury and medical malpractice suits, and various types of commercial litigation.  For more information, visit our web site at  www.eugenekhollanderlaw.com, or contact us directly at:

The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander
33 N. Dearborn
Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60602
(312)-425-9100
E-mail: EHollander@ekhlaw.com

Copyright © 2010  The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander. This publication may be considered advertising material under the Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility and is not intended to create any attorney-client relationship.  The reader should  not rely  upon any statement or opinion as legal advice, but rather, should consider it as generally informative.


 

Legal Trends Focuses on Recent Race Discrimination Case and Latest High Court Opinion

In this issue of Legal Trends, we highlight a recently filed lawsuit against American Bottling Company alleging that it maintained a hostile work environment, and two significant court opinions.  The first discusses the taxability of severance payments, and the latter held that damage caps on medical malpractice cases were unconstitutional.

Employment Law

Hollander Law Offices Files Suit Against American Bottling Company For Hostile Work Environment.

For Robin Murray and his fellow African American co-workers, going to work has been anything but a walk in the park.  Murray has been a forklift operator at the American Bottling Company, (ABC), Northlake, Illinois plant since September, 2007.  The company manufactures and distributes beverages such as Snapple and Dr. Pepper.  Almost from the outset of his start date, Murray claims that he was subjected to a racially hostile work environment.

Murray was primarily supervised by three Hispanic managers.  One of his supervisors called him and the other African American forklift operators, “burro,” Spanish for donkey.  Another supervisor rode around the plant in a go-kart, and would slap a stick behind the black employees like he was a plantation owner.

Other employees have testified during the course of the case that they were subjected to other racial slurs, such as the n-word, monkey, and clean-up bitches.  The factory workers also claim that the supervisors gave better work assignments to their Hispanic counterparts.  Racial hostility boiled to the top when the employees found racist graffiti written across their lockers in January and May, 2009.

The employees testified that they tried to call Human Resources about the discrimination, but because they worked the night shift, there was no one to take the call.  Complaints to their supervisors and union steward did nothing to alleviate the situation.

On December 16, 2009, Murray and six other African American forklift operators filed a civil rights lawsuit against the company for race discrimination.  The suit was expanded shortly thereafter to include two more co-workers, for a total of nine employees.  Archie Hayes, another one of the plaintiffs, said “I felt like it was kind of setting us back 100 years.”  Most of the plaintiffs are still employed at the plant because they cannot find work at a comparable wage and need to pay bills.

This is not the first time that ABC has had to confront the race issue.  In 2003, the EEOC filed suit against the company for maintaining a racially hostile work environment.  In December, 2004, the company and the EEOC reached an agreement, known as a consent decree, wherein ABC agreed to take steps to stop the racial harassment.  Apparently, that was not successful as in June and July, 2009, seven other lawsuits involving nine plaintiffs, were filed against ABC alleging that they, too, were subjected to a racially hostile work environment.  Those case were ultimately resolved and dismissed.

For now, Murray and his co-workers, continue to work at the plant as the case progresses.  Two of the Hispanic supervisors were terminated on December 1, 2009, but neither for uttering the racial epithets.  The third supervisor is still employed by ABC.  The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages and $1,000,000 each in punitive damages in the case.  No trial date has yet been set.

Federal District Court Rules That Severance Payments Are Not Taxable.
In this economy, many employees have lost their jobs.

When they do, companies often extend severance payments to them in exchange for a release of claims.  While the loss of employment may strike an employee hard, a recent court ruling holding that such payments are not taxable income, may soften the blow.

Quality Stores, a large retail chain concentrating in agricultural products, closed 60 stores when it faced an economic downturn.  It initially terminated about 75 employees, and later, all of its remaining employees who were left on the payroll.  The terminated employees received severance payments, and the company later filed refund claims for overpaid employment taxes.

The Court ruled that the wages should not be characterized as wages for employment tax purposes.  The Court reasoned that since the payments were made to support the workers who lost their ability to earn wages, it did not make sense to impose taxes on these benefits.  The Internal Revenue Service is expected to appeal the ruling.

Employees who have brought discrimination claims against a former employer, and later settle them, similarly face the same dilemma.  In this situation, the employee who is likely unemployed, resolves her claim.  Once attorney’s fees and costs are deduced, and taxes are withheld from the net proceeds, the client obtains a mere fraction of the gross settlement.  Though legislation has been proposed to ease this burden for these plaintiffs, Congress has yet to pass any law to cure this problem.

Personal Injury Law

Illinois Supreme Court Strikes Down Caps On Medical Malpractice Cases
In 2005, the Illinois legislature passed a law limiting the amount of damages which could be recovered in a medical malpractice case.  The law provided that an injured party could not recover noneconomic damages against a doctor in excess of $500,000, and no more than $1,000,000 against a hospital.  Noneconomic damages include losses for things such as pain and suffering and disability, as opposed to lost wages.
In a lawsuit filed in November, 2006 by Abigail Lebron, the plaintiff claimed that the hospital and doctors who were involved during her childbirth were negligent.  As part of her lawsuit, the plaintiff asked the court to determine that the cap on noneconomic damages was unconstitutional.

The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case.  It reasoned that noneconomic damages were difficult to assess, but that the problem was not alleviated by placing noneconomic damage caps on all cases.  The Court further reasoned that the law impinged on the authority of the courts – if a verdict was excessive, the trial court has the authority to reduce an excessively large jury verdict with the consent of the plaintiff.  If the plaintiff does not consent, the trial court could order a new trial.  Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald, writing for the majority, held that since the legislature overstepped its bounds by violating the separation of powers doctrine encroaching on judicial authority, the law  could not stand.

While supporters of the law argue that doctors will flee the state because of excessively large medical malpractice insurance premiums, in fact, insurance carriers are more profitable than ever.  Further, other research has demonstrated that damages caps do not reduce the overall cost of health care.

For now, damage caps on medical malpractice claims and other types of personal injury cases do not appear to be on the horizon.

Office News

The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander is proud to announce that Gina M. Shawver has joined the firm as an associate.  Ms. Shawver is  a 2005 graduate of Purdue University and a 2009 graduate of Valparaiso University School of Law.  She concentrates her practice in employment law and personal injury cases.

About the author

Eugene Hollander is a trial attorney who currently heads his own law office in Chicago.  Mr. Hollander has tried numerous cases in the state and federal courts.  The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander is a full service law firm, concentrating its practice in employment discrimination claims, personal injury and medical malpractice suits, and various types of commercial litigation.  For more information, visit our web site at  www.eugenekhollanderlaw.com, or contact us directly at:

The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander
33 N. Dearborn, Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60602
(312)-425-9100
E-mail: EHollander@ekhlaw.com

Copyright © 2010  The Law Offices of Eugene K. Hollander. This publication may be considered advertising material under the Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility and is not intended to create any attorney-client relationship.  The reader should  not rely  upon any statement or opinion as legal advice, but rather, should consider it as generally informative.


Hall v. Nalco Company

In a case of first impression decided by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appellate court ruled that women who undergo infertility treatments are protected by Title VII of the United States Code and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

According to the allegations of her lawsuit, Cheryl Hall was employed by Nalco Company, and was hired by the company in 1997. In April, 2000, Hall took on the role of sales secretary. In March, 2003, Hall took a leave of absence to undergo in vitro fertilization, (“IVF”). Hall’s initial IVF treatment was unsuccessful, and she advised her manager that she planned to undergo another procedure. In July, 2003, Hall sought to take another leave of absence.

In the interim, in January, 2003, Nalco began to undergo a reorganization which led to a consolidation of sales offices. Nalco terminated Hall’s employment – her supervisor told her that it “was in her best interest due to her health condition.” Documents produced during the litigation showed that a human resources representative noted in Hall’s employee file, her job performance, citing “absenteeism – infertility treatments.”

Hall filed suit for sex and pregnancy discrimination, claiming that she was unlawful discharged due to a pregnancy related condition, infertility. The district court dismissed the case, holding that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not cover infertility because the condition affects men and women alike.

On June 4, 2007, Eugene K. Hollander presented oral arguments before the appellate court. On July 16, 2007, The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its landmark opinion and reversed, noting employees terminated for taking time off to undergo IVF will always be women. The Court observed that this issue was one that the court had never been presented before, and to its knowledge, was one that had never been encountered by another federal appellate. Hall’s attorney, Eugene K. Hollander, observed that “this is a huge victory for my client and for women throughout the United States. Women will no longer have to worry that by seeking IVF treatments, their job may be in jeopardy.” The case was covered by the Wall Street Journal, The Chicago Sun Times and The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.

On August 15, 2008 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Nalco’s Petition for Rehearing.  We anticipate that Nalco will file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to seek review before the United States Supreme Court.

Magallanes v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company

On July 24, 2008, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court judge’s finding that Lydia Magallanes entered into a binding agreement to settle her employment discrimination case.  After an evidentiary hearing, Judge William Hibbler concluded that the Plaintiff agreed to dismiss her case in exchange for a $10,000 settlement payment.  Magallanes maintained that she always wanted to go to trial and that she never agreed to settle her case.  In its opinion, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district court judge abused its discretion.  Eugene K. Hollander presented oral arguments before the appellate court.  The case was featured by The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.


Hollander Law Offices Obtains Record Verdict Against Rosebud Restaurants In Pregnancy and FMLA case.

The Buffone case was featured as a Special Segment on WLS-TV in Chicago.

On September 8, 2006, a federal jury in Chicago returned a $380,000 verdict against Rosebud Restaurants in a pregnancy discrimination and Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) case. According to the Cook County Jury Verdict Reporter, this was the second largest verdict in Chicago for a pregnancy and/or FMLA case.

Kristine Buffone, daughter-in-law of Chicago Bears great Doug Buffone, was employed by Rosebud in various capacities for approximately eight years. In September, 2002, Kristine was promoted to Manager of its Theater District Restaurant, located at 70 W. Madison Street. Kristine earned $30,000 annually with benefits. On June 10, 2003, Kristine announced to her supervisor, Yvonne Burke, that she was pregnant. Kristine testified that the Executive Chef at the restaurant stated that “no one wants to watch a pregnant woman while they are eating dinner – that is disgusting.” Burke later told Kristine that she was “getting big,” “getting too big, and that we have to get you out of here.” Kristine also testified that in 2001, Burke referred to two other female employees as having “crazy pregnant lady syndrome.”

Rosebud refused to schedule Kristine after July 7, 2003. In late September, 2003, she inquired of Nancy Krause, Executive Administrator of Human Resources, about insurance and benefits. Krause, who conceded at trial that she was aware of Kristine’s November 3, 2003 due date, told her to write and backdate two letters for July 1, 2003. The first letter requested FMLA leave from July 8, 2003 through September 30, 2003, and the second letter requested an additional month of medical leave, expiring on October 31, 2003 – prior to the time that Kristine was to deliver her baby. Kristine testified that it was her intention to work up until her due date, and then take leave.

On November 17, 2003, Kristine delivered her baby via C-section. Kristine started to call Rosebud corporate and Burke in December 2003, seeking to return to work in either late December, 2003 or early January, 2004. Burke told Kristine in January, 2004 that “they were full,” and that she “chose to have a family, and could not expect Robbie (her male replacement) to step aside.”

Kristine was asked to fill in for several part-time shifts as host and bartender in February, 2004 and did so. Kristine’s last work with the company was on February 14, 2004. The defense contended that Kristine quit in July, 2003. Kristine refuted that theory by offering evidence that she was placed on FMLA in July, 2003, that Defendant paid for her insurance during FMLA, and that an internal e-mail from the Payroll Manager to the Chief Financial Officer in September, 2003 stated that Kristine was on “maternity leave” and that she intended to return to work within six weeks after the delivery of her baby.

Rosebud also argued that Kristine wished to have her FMLA start on July 8, 2003. Kristine countered that argument with her testimony that she wished to work until her due date, and that since her husband was unemployed at that time, she needed the insurance and the benefits to support her family. Kristine’s attorneys used a timeline to aid the jury in understanding how Rosebud disregarded her employment rights.

The jury found in Kristine’s favor on her Pregnancy Discrimination Act Claim and her claim under the FMLA. The jury awarded Kristine $55,000 in back pay damages, $75,000 in compensatory damages, and $250,000 in punitive damages. Since the verdict, the trial judge has denied Rosebud’s Motion for a New Trial. Since the verdict, Judge Suzanne Conlon awarded Kristine an additional $55,000 in liquidated damages, and Magistrate Judge Sidney Schenkier recommended that Kristine should be awarded attorney’s fees against Rosebud in the sum of $148,000. With the total award likely to exceed $580,000, the case settled for a confidential sum while it was pending on appeal. Eugene Hollander, and Paul Ryan, in his first federal jury trial, handled the proceedings.

 

Eugene Hollander has had the following article: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS – A NEW WEAPON FOR EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, published in the March, 2007 issue of the Illinois Bar Journal. Also, the 2009 supplement to Employment Evidence was recently released. See.

http://jamespublishing.com/books/ee.htm