Judicial Ruling

By NORA NEWMAN JURGENS

U.S. District Court

The Shakman decision on patronage, Year No. 14

A FEDERAL court's April 4 ruling against political hiring in Cook County and Chicago is apparently the last step in a 14-year-long quest by Chicago attorney Michael Shakman to end patronage in Illinois.

In 1972, the original federal case, Shakman, et al. v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, et al. — which was a landmark — put a legal end to political firings in Illinois. In 1979, U.S. District Judge Nicholas J. Bua ruled hiring according to politics was also unconstitutional. But it wasn't until this year that Bua issued provisions for carrying out that order.

The original "Shakman agreement," as it is known, arose from Shakman's 1969 challenge of the political patronage system. The suit was initially dismissed by U.S. District Judge Abraham Marovitz in 1972. But with orders from the U.S. Supreme Court, Marovitz entered an injunction barring party leaders and officials in Illinois from making government employees do political work or contribute to campaigns. The order led to an agreement by officials not to fire employees for political reasons.

Bua's 1983 provisions extending the agreement to cover hiring as well as firing arose from a complaint by Shakman about Cook County; the order directly affects Cook County and Chicago. All affected public employers must file a plan of compliance with the court, and are required to follow a set of guidelines for hiring. Various "interim exempt positions" are included in the order, giving elected officials and department heads a chance to petition the court to permanently exempt some of their employees. About 25,000 to 30,000 public jobs are expected to be affected by Bua's order; there are about 65,000 jobs in local government in Cook County and Chicago.

July 1983 | Illinois Issues | 32

Illinois Supreme Court

No UI benefits for locked out workers

WORKERS WHO are "locked out" by their employers in a labor dispute cannot collect unemployment benefits, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled April 22.

In the case, Local 7-641, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, et al. v. The Department of Labor, et al., 140 workers at the Chicago-area Veliscol Chemical Corporation went out on strike in December 1977 after failing to reach agreement on a new contract. The strikers had been denied unemployment benefits by the Department of Labor, a decision that was upheld by the circuit and appellate courts in Cook County.

In their appeal, which the Supreme Court rejected, the strikers claimed they had been "constructively locked out" because terms offered by their employer were "worse than the status quo." According to the court in its opinion written by Justice Robert C. Underwood, the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act clearly states that workers are ineligible for benefits when "they were directly interested in the labor dispute which caused the stoppage of work."

In March the high court had ruled in Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Bowling that only a locked out employee or one who honors a picket line, but who is otherwise not interested or involved in the dispute, may receive benefits.

Child custody and parent's sex life

THE IMPORTANCE of evidence of a parent's sex life in custody cases remains unclear, as the result of an April 13 Illinois Supreme Court decision. In the case, In re Marriage of John Delance Thompson and Kathryn Mae Thompson, it would appear that the court reevaluated its position on the issue.

In its 1979 case, Jarrett v. Jarrett, the high court ruled that the mother's "open and notorious" living arrangement with her boyfriend was sufficient cause to deny her the custody of her two daughters. In the Thompson case, the high court awarded Thompson custody of his son, despite allegations he had had "illicit" affairs, threatened a former girlfriend who had testified against him, and "snatched" the child from the mother on a street in Michigan. She had fled with her son to Michigan, where she had obtained custody.

In the opinion written by Justice William G. Clark, the high court disapproved of Thompson's conduct in "forcibly obtaining physical custody." But the court upheld a lower court's refusal to defer jurisdiction to Michigan, because Mrs. Thompson waited until a year after the incident occurred to ask for the deferral.

Mrs. Thompson used Jarrett to support her cause. According to Clark, however, Jarrett did not establish a presumption that "cohabitation" by the parent with custody is harmful to the child. "Rather, all of the circumstances must be considered that affect the best interests of the child," Clark said.

Justice Thomas J. Moran agreed with the decision but he disagreed with the basis of the decision. He said in a special concurring opinion that Jarrett did establish a conclusive presumption that cohabitation is harmful to a child.

Two justices dissented because the trial court had denied further evidence the mother wanted considered.

Expert witness no expert in state's case

AN ILLINOIS man serving a five-year sentence for arson will get a new trial because the state's chief expert witness lied about his qualifications, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled April 13. The high court also scolded the state for a "lack of diligence in verifying those qualifications."

Justice Seymour Simon wrote the court's opinion in the case, People v. Amil T. Cornille, in which he said the false testimony resulted in a denial of due process for Cornille. Two years after the trial, the "expert," Dennis Michaelson, told a newspaper reporter that he had lied about his qualifications as a witness. Michaelson, who had been used by the state as an expert witness in at least two other arson trials, has been charged with perjury in three cases.

Cornille was accused of setting fire to his home in 1977 to collect insurance; he claimed defective wiring caused the fire. The trial was a battle between expert witnesses on both sides, and as the prosecutor noted, "the outcome of the case turned on which experts the jury believed." The high court ruled that Michaelson's "impressive credentials" had apparently swayed the jury.

In taking the prosecution to task for not verifying Michaelson's credentials, Simon pointed out that courts at all levels have held that "false testimony by a witness at a criminal trial violated due process even though the state's involvement in the testimony in those cases did not rise to the level of knowing use."

July 1983 | Illinois Issues | 33