Jaros v. Vill. of Downers Grove

• Decision Date: 25 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2-18-0654,2-18-0654
• Citation: 180 N.E.3d 125,2020 IL App (2d) 180654,449 Ill.Dec. 711
• Parties: Arthur G. JAROS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The VILLAGE OF DOWNERS GROVE; Susan D. Farley; League of Women Voters of Downers Grove, Woodridge, and Lisle; Gregory W. Hosé, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Village of Downers Grove; Robert T. Barnett, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Village of Downers Grove; and Martin T. Tully, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Mayor of the Village of Downers Grove, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2020 IL App (2d) 180654

180 N.E.3d 125

449 Ill.Dec. 711

Arthur G. JAROS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.The VILLAGE OF DOWNERS GROVE; Susan D. Farley; League of Women Voters of Downers Grove, Woodridge, and Lisle; Gregory W. Hosé, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Village of Downers Grove; Robert T. Barnett, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Village of Downers Grove; and Martin T. Tully, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Mayor of the Village of Downers Grove, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 2-18-0654

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

Opinion filed June 25, 2020

Rehearing denied August 13, 2020

Philip Nathanson, of The Nathanson Law Firm, of Chicago, for appellant.

John B. Murphey and Matthew D. Rose, of Rosenthal, Murphey, Coblentz & Donahue, of Chicago, and Enza I. Petrarca, of Downers Grove, for appelleesVillage of Downers Grove, Gregory W. Hosé, Robert T. Barnett, and Martin T. Tully.

Barnes & Thornburg LLP(Denise A. Lazar and Christine E. Skoczylas, of Chicago, and Matthew T. Ciulla(pro hac vice), of Indianapolis, Indiana, of counsel), and John J. Skawski and Justin J. Kaszuba, of Skawski Law Offices, LLC, of Oak Brook, for other appellees.

PRESIDING JUSTICE BIRKETTdelivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

¶ 1 In September 2017, the village council of Downers Grove (Council) removed plaintiff, Arthur Jaros, from his seat on the board of trustees for the Downers Grove Public Library (Board).The impetus for the removal was a report, written by Susan Farley of the League of Women Voters of Downers Grove, Woodridge, and Lisle (League) and published by the League, stating that plaintiff made bigoted comments at the Board's August 2017 monthly meeting (August 23 meeting).Seeking redress for both the report of his comments and his removal from the Board, plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including the Village of Downers Grove(Village), Farley, the League, Gregory Hosé and Robert Barnett, who were members of the Council, and Martin Tully, who was the Village mayor.On the motion of defendants, the trial court dismissed plaintiff's first amended complaint with prejudice.The court later denied plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.Plaintiff appeals, raising multiple issues.We affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 On September 5, 2017, plaintiff filed his original complaint.Along with the complaint, plaintiff filed a motion for injunctive relief, seeking to bar the Council from voting that evening on a resolution to remove plaintiff from the Board.The trial court heard the motion that same day and denied it as premature.That evening, the Council adopted the resolution to remove plaintiff from the Board.

¶ 4 On September 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a seven-count amended complaint against the originally named defendants.In the complaint's general allegations, plaintiff stated that, in August 2015, he was appointed by the Council to a six-year term on the Board.See75 ILCS 5/4-2(West 2014)(the village council appoints library trustees).Plaintiff alleged that the position of library trustee is nonpartisan, that he served as trustee"without any political affiliation," and that he is "not a precinct committeeman or other type of official or employee of any political party."

¶ 5 Counts I and II alleged defamation.Count I named Farley and count II named the League on a respondeat superior theory.Plaintiff alleged that, on August 23, 2017, the Board met for its regular monthly meeting.All six trustees, including plaintiff, were present.Also present were the Village library's chief executive officer, Julie Milavec, and various library staff, including Katelyn Vabalaitis, who was acting as recording secretary for the meeting.Present as a spectator was Farley, a member of the League.Neither Hosé, Bartlett, nor Tully were present.On the meeting's agenda was the final version of a "Strategic Plan"(Plan) for the Village library.Plaintiff attached excerpts of the Plan to his complaint.One section of the Plan read:

"Goal: We reflect the diversity of our community

Objective: To be inclusive in providing service to the community

Action	Point Person	Target Date
[1] Provide regular training for all staff in equity, diversity, and inclusion	Managers	Annual
[2] Incorporate inclusive practices into library services	Managers	Annual
[3] Create a diversity strategy for hiring that reflects the community	Julie Milavec	December 2019

¶ 6Plaintiff alleged that the discussion of the Plan resulted in changes to the three proposed action items, including removing action item (2) and rewording action items (1) and (3).With these changes, the Plan was approved.Following the meeting, the League published on the Internet Farley's "Observer's Report"(Report) of the August 23 meeting.Plaintiff attached the Report to his complaint.In the Report, Farley summarized plaintiff's comments on the three action items:

"(1) Jaros expressed his objection to Action Item 2.He specifically identified that this statement: ‘Staff would receive training in Equity, Diversity and Inclusion,’ in his opinion, did not meet the Affirmative Action requirement and Staff should be hired only by merit.He questioned why Library staff needed to be trained in any of these areas (Equity, Diversity or Inclusion).He stated he objected to Staff, who would be around children, receiving any training in how to handle inclusion.Should the staff be trained in Inclusion, Jaros continued, it would open the library up to problems.The children, in his opinion, had to be protected by library staff from inclusion by ignoring its existence.He then proceeded to read out loud word by word from what he stated was the Illinois School Code, IL Sex Education Section to the Board members.Jaros re-stated a second time to further emphasize, after completing the reading of the ISC Sex Education Section, the ISC specifically states a marriage is only between a man and a woman.He personally commented that the code he read did not recognize homosexual marriage and he felt the Library must not either.The Staff had to protect the children from homosexuals and exposure to homosexual life style.He proceeded to continue to express his personal views on how we should view straight people vs. gays and reject any inclusion and people different from white straight people.

[Jaros] further commented that he felt library staff did the Board a disservice by inserting the 3 Action Items in the Strategic Plan without prior review by the Board.As he[was] just reading them at the meeting, he felt unprepared to fight their very existence in the Plan.

* * *

(5) Jaros stated he would be voting ‘no’ to the entire Strategic Plan if Action Item 2 remained as presented.He also commented he would really like to eliminate all 3 Action Items until they could be properly reworded by him.Jaros suggested replacing the word ‘hiring’ in Action Item 3 with ‘recruiting’ and was concerned this Action Item 3 would not obtain the best candidate for the library staff due to its statement about diversity.

* * *

(7) Jaros stated his objection to the library staff creating any reading lists for distribution as they might pick authors that were too diverse and not, in his opinion, a true reflection of writers he felt were appropriate for children."

¶ 7 According to the Report, the Board ultimately voted to remove action item (2) and reword action item (3).

¶ 8Plaintiff specified the following portion of the Report as defamatory:

"He[Jaros] proceeded to continue to express his personal views on how we should * * * reject any * * * people different from white straight people."

Plaintiff asserted that this statement (reported statement)"was false in its use of the term ‘white’ " and also "false in its ascribing to Plaintiff a statement concerning rejecting any people."Plaintiff denied making any mention of "race or skin color" at the August 23 meeting.Plaintiff alleged that Farley made her report "with reckless disregard for the truth and, therefore, with malice."

¶ 9Plaintiff alleged that the reported statement prompted users of social media to attack him as "bigoted" towards persons of other races and sexual orientations.Plaintiff asserted that he was an attorney by occupation and that the reported statement "injured [his] reputation" as a member of the bar.He also claimed damage to his general reputation in the Village.

¶ 10Plaintiff also attached to his complaint an e-mail he sent to Tully on August 27, 2017.In this e-mail, plaintiff provided his own account of the Board's "animated discussion" of the Plan's action items.Plaintiff wrote:

"With respect to the first action item, my concern was for indoctrination of staff—particularly staff of the children's department—in the ‘political correctness’ associated with the activist, ‘progressive’ left in this nation.‘Equity’‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ can easily be interpreted as code words for anything goes, no matter how vulgar or otherwise against community values.

I specifically pointed out that with respect to the children's department, we must be careful to reflect the policy preferences of the State of Illinois.I explained that with respect to school age children, the law * * * continues to require public school instructional materials to ‘teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.’The law—despite recent amendment of [the] School Code * * * and despite recent legislation permitting in Illinois homosexual statutory marriage for adults —does not mandate for the teaching of our children anything comparable with respect to ‘honor and respect’ for other statutory forms of ‘marriage.The maxim ‘expressio unius est exclusio alterius’ in my view is operative here.

I therefore explained that with respect to children , our law does not adopt diversity and inclusion as to different forms of marriages but instead singles out ‘monogamous heterosexual marriage’ for

...