Miceli v. City of Chicago, 84 C 3197.
| Decision Date | 05 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84 C 3197.,84 C 3197. |
| Citation | 591 F. Supp. 633 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Parties | Phyllis MICELI, Plaintiff, v. The CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Defendants. |
William T. Donahue, David G. Wilkins, Strauss, Sulzer, Shopiro & Wilkins, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
James D. Montgomery, Corp. Counsel, City of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., Joseph G. Bisceglia, Jonathan K. Baum, Jenner & Block, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
The instant matter was brought under Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 569 F.Supp. 177 (N.D.Ill. 1983) (Shakman III) seeking a declaration that the position from which plaintiff was terminated should not be designated as exempt from the constraints of the 1972 consent decree entered in Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, reprinted in Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 481 F.Supp. 1315, 1356 app. (N.D.Ill.1979) (Shakman I) and requesting this Court to find the defendants in violation of Shakman I for the termination of plaintiff. Before the Court is the defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint. For the reasons stated herein, defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted.
On September 22, 1983, plaintiff Miceli was informed that effective September 30, 1983, she would be terminated from her employment with the City of Chicago as a Staff Assistant to the Fire Commissioner. Plaintiff's former position is among those listed as exempt from the constraints of Shakman I, subject to this Court's review, under Schedule G of Shakman III, 569 F.Supp. at 196. Under Shakman III, an individual who believes he or she has been terminated from a Schedule G exempt position for political reasons in violation of Shakman I must first apply for review of the classification of the position as exempt. Such application must be filed within ninety days of the City's action. 569 F.Supp. at 207. Plaintiff did not file the instant suit until April 13, 1984, nearly two hundred days after she was terminated. Defendant has thus moved to dismiss the action claiming that this Court's jurisdiction over the review of the classification of the position as exempt has expired.
Plaintiff contends that her failure to file within the ninety-day time limit is excusable. Assuming, arguendo, that the failure to file within the time limit may be excused, the Court cannot agree with plaintiff's position.
Plaintiff states that when she was terminated, she received no notice of her Shakman rights. Never having received a reason for the termination, Miceli wrote Mayor Harold Washington seeking an explanation. A few days later, plaintiff was interviewed by Michael Holewinski of the Mayor's staff who told her he would obtain an alternative position for her. Such a position, in the Department of Health, was subsequently offered to plaintiff; however, because she felt that the position was unsuitable as it would involve a loss of seniority and constitute, in effect, a demotion, Miceli rejected the offer. Miceli states that she was then informed by Holewinski that another suitable position would be found for her. In addition, a supervisor in the Department of Health told Miceli to wait until after the first of the year before taking action so that he could find a suitable position for her.
Around this time, plaintiff obtained the advice of two attorneys who told her that a lawsuit would not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial