Smith v. City of Chicago, 84 C 6754.
| Decision Date | 05 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84 C 6754.,84 C 6754. |
| Citation | 591 F. Supp. 635 |
| Parties | Harold SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Stephen J. Senderowitz, Troelstrup, Dolkart, Patterson & Senderowitz, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Donald Hubert, Donald Hubert & Associates, Chicago, Ill., James D. Montgomery, Corp. Counsel, City of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
Before the Court is the defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's Shakman petition based on the doctrine of laches. For the reasons stated herein, defendants' motion is granted.
On or about November 25, 1982, plaintiff Harold Smith was demoted from his position as a bricklayer in the City of Chicago's Department of Sewers to the position of laborer. On June 29, 1984, Smith was terminated from his employment. While Smith does not directly challenge his ultimate termination, he does contend that his 1982 demotion was politically motivated and that had he not been demoted he would have accumulated sufficient seniority to preclude his ultimate termination.
Defendants argue that plaintiff's petition should be barred based on the doctrine of laches. In Gurgone v. City of Chicago, 587 F.Supp. 1347, 1352 (N.D.Ill.1984), this Court noted the law of laches as applied to cases such as that at bar:
A decision on the issue of laches rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Baker Manufacturing Co. v. Whitewater Manufacturing Co., 430 F.2d 1008, 1009 (7th Cir.1970). This discretion, while broad, is not unfettered by appropriate standards. Goodman v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 606 F.2d 800, 804 (8th Cir.1979). Thus where, as here, a case involves government employment, the court is bound by public policy which requires the prompt assertion of the employee's rights so that government service is disturbed as little as possible and two salaries are not paid for a single service. United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane, 249 U.S. 367 39 S.Ct. 293, 63 L.Ed. 650 (1919), quoted in Brown v. United States, 418 F.2d 442, 444 (5th Cir.1970). It is well settled in this Circuit that the plaintiff bears the burden of explaining its delay in bringing suit. Lingenfelter v. Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., 691 F.2d 339, 340 (7th Cir.1980); Baker Manufacturing Co., 430 F.2d at 1011-15. See, also, Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, (Petition of Joseph Galvin), 549 F.Supp. 801 (N.D.Ill.1982).
In the case at bar, twenty-one months passed before plaintiff chose to challenge his demotion. As an explanation for such delay, plaintiff states that he feared that the City would terminate him altogether in retribution if he chose to bring a Shakman suit while still employed.
This Court has no doubt as to the reality and veracity of plaintiff's fear of retribution. However, it is such retribution that actions under Shakman are aimed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. City of Chicago
...court held the claim barred by laches in light of "the harm presumably suffered by the City, a governmental employer," during the delay, 591 F.Supp. 635. I This court reviews findings of laches under a highly deferential standard. We reverse only if the losing party shows a "clear abuse of ......
-
Smith v. City of Chicago
...of laches. A motion to reconsider was also denied. On appeal in Smith v. City of Chicago, 769 F.2d 408 (7th Cir.1985), aff'g, 591 F.Supp. 635 (N.D.Ill.1984), this Court affirmed, finding that since the Shakman petition was filed twenty-one months after the plaintiff's politically-motivated ......
- Miceli v. City of Chicago, 84 C 3197.