Agency changes its mind about suing state employees A state agency suing state employees? Yes, you read correctly. The Illinois Department of Central Management Services filed a lawsuit in mid-November against the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31. The suit contended the union had issued false and misleading statements regarding a state government plan to re-classify job titles. The department charged that the union's newsletter had mischaracterized the move. Legal experts scratched their heads, pondering the legality — and intelligence — of alleging that a state agency could claim its character had been defamed. State Rep. Kurt Granberg, a Democrat from rural Carlyle, summed it up this way: "If the [November] election taught us anything, it's that government is too big. Government should not be in the business of filing lawsuits against its employees." For his part, department Director Stephen Schnorf issued the following terse statement in defense: "This lawsuit was not and is not frivolous." Nevertheless, the department withdrew the suit a few weeks later. It explained why in yet another printed statement: "This lawsuit has served its purpose and we have made our point." Schnorf did not elaborate on what that point might be.

State's top court vetoes civil damages for demotions after injured worker claims

The Illinois Supreme Court created a "glaring loophole," according to Chief Justice Michael A. Bilandic, when it ruled that an employee can be demoted for applying for workers' compensation.

It's unlawful to discharge an employee who seeks compensation, but state statute also forbids an employer to restrain, coerce or discriminate against an employee. Flouting these comprehensive bans can lead to criminal prosecution.

In 1978, the court ruled that the public interest in compensation of injured workers required the possibility of civil suits for retaliatory discharge. The plaintiff in this case argued that parallel prohibitions in the act imply parallel civil remedies.

Three members of the court held that Illinois courts at all levels have historically refused to take this step. They said there's no proof that demotion or other discrimination thwarts the purpose of assuring certain and prompt compensation for work-related injuries.

Justice Mary Ann McMorrow wrote for the three members who took this position on Zimmerman v Buchheit of Sparta (Docket No. 75783). The opinion prevailed because Chief Justice Bilandic, joined by Justice James D. Heiple, wrote a concurrence. At the same time, Bilandic agreed with the dissent of Justices Moses W. Harrison II and John L. Nickles that allowing for civil damages in retaliatory discharge logically requires civil damages in cases of retaliatory demotion or discrimination. However, Bilandic concluded that the court should now repudiate its 1978 decision and do away with damages for retaliatory discharge. Harrison, meanwhile, argued that it would now be consistent to recognize damages for retaliatory discrimination.

Chicago Bar must pay

The Chicago Bar Association must pay real estate taxes on its headquarters. The association had sought an exemption, arguing that the headquarters is located adjacent to an educational institution and is used for educational purposes. The building is next to the John Marshall Law School. The state Supreme Court ruled that the property must meet consitutional definitions for exemption, not merely statutory guidelines. Under the state Constitution, an exemption may be granted for property used exclusively for school purposes, which the court interprets as "primarily" for educational purposes. The court found that the headquarters serves primarily as a place for its members to meet and dine, with educational uses being secondary and incidental. The court's opinion was written by Justice Moses W. Harrison II .

Courts can incarcerate to enforce orders

Courts may keep a person in jail without a formal trial if the purpose is to enforce its orders, according to the state's high court. A man convicted of kidnapping his daughter served a sentence from 1985 to 1987. The day after his release he was jailed again for contempt because he would not — he said he could not — reveal the girl's whereabouts. Since then he has served a series of six-month terms. The question posed to the Illinois Supreme Court was whether the incarceration had ceased to be coercive — since the man's steadfast refusal to comply with the court's order indicates that coercion is not working — and has become punitive, which would not be allowed. The court said that the passage of time is only one factor for courts to consider and that the opinion of the trial judge, as the official most familiar with the facts of the case, deserves great deference. It refused to free the defendant. Justice Benjamin K. Miller wrote the opinion in Sanders v Shephard (Docket No. 77016).

Move by anti-abortion lawmakers overturned in court

Illinois must abide by federal guidelines and pay for abortions for poor women who are victims of rape or incest, according to a ruling by a federal judge. Previously, the state only paid for abortions when a mother's life was in danger.

A usually obscure Illinois legislative committee garnered national exposure when it challenged the controversial rule. The state's Department of Public Aid had issued an emergency directive bringing the state into compliance with the federal provision. The department argued that Illinois could have lost billions of dollars in federal Medicaid funds.

But the move angered anti-abortion lawmakers who argued that a state agency shouldn't be setting public policy. Legislators on the state's bipartisan Joint Committee on Administrative Rules voted to block the abortion funds. The panel approves rules and regulations for state agencies.

Less than a week later, a federal judge issued a temporary order that the state restore the funding. Later the ruling was made permanent — and it appears the panel is headed for obscurity once again.

Lawmakers vote to shield court witnesses

For the second time, the legislature approved a measure allowing court witnesses to testify on closed-circuit television. Lawmakers took the action during the fall veto session after voters approved a state constitutional amendment authorizing the provision.

An earlier law allowing such testimony had been overturned by the state Supreme Court on constitutional grounds.

Until voters approved the amendment on November 8, the state Constitution gave defendants the right to meet witnesses face to face.

Proponents of the change want to shield children from having to testify in front of those they accuse of sexual assault.

F. Mark Siebert and Jennifer Halperin

January 1995/Illinois Issues/39