Ryan v. Ill. Dept. of Children & Family Services, 92-3079.
| Decision Date | 07 May 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-3079.,92-3079. |
| Citation | 963 F.Supp. 1490 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois |
| Parties | Barbara M. RYAN and William O. Gillespie, Plaintiffs, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES (Injunctive Relief Only), Sue Suter, Thomas Villiger, Gary Veicht, Michael Horstman, Patrick Flynn, Michael P. Sakolsky, Ronald Moody, Rita G. Seggelke, John R. Henderson, Tom Putting, and John Bucari, all individually, Defendants. |
Patricia C. Benassi, Charles E. Tucker, Jr., Peoria, IL, for plaintiffs.
Deborah L. Barnes, Terence J. Corrigan, Springfield, IL, for defendants.
The Plaintiffs waived the majority of their claims in this lawsuit by failing to avail themselves of their procedural due process rights, i.e. failing to appear at the pre-termination hearing and the civil service hearing.
The remaining claims are grounded solely on the First Amendment rights of speech and religion. At the close of Plaintiffs' evidence, it becomes clear that no reasonable jury could find in their favor and Defendants therefore, are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
But first, the prolix facts of this case.
William Gillespie was the Regional Administrator of the Springfield Region of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") from June 1981 until January 23, 1992, when he was terminated. Barbara Ryan had been employed by DCFS for 27 years and was the Assistant Regional Administrator when she retired on December 31, 1991.
Prior to their terminations, both Ryan and Gillespie had excellent work records and had no prior discipline in connection with their employment. They administered the Springfield Region jointly from 1984 until their termination. Not only did Plaintiffs work together, they also established Sand Dollar Publishing Co. in 1984 to publish Gillespie's works. Gillespie wrote poetry and wrote books dealing with the subject of reincarnation.
Ryan and Gillespie claim Defendants retaliated against them for a series of communications and other protected conduct. The Defendants, and their position at DCFS at the time of the termination, are as follows1:
1. DCFS: an agency and political subdivision of the State of Illinois established by state statute in order to provide social services to children and families, to operate children's institutions, and to provide other rehabilitative and residential services.
2. Sue Suter: Director of DCFS from approximately January 1991 until after the events in question.
3. Thomas Villiger: Deputy director for DCFS. He is now retired. Ryan and Gillespie were under his supervision.
4. Garry Veicht: Executive Deputy Director.
5. Michael Horstman: Executive Deputy Director.
6. Patrick Flynn: Child Protective Investigator.
7. Michael Sakolsky: Adoption Worker (caseworker).
8. Ronald Moody: Administrative Case Reviewer (caseworker)
9. Rita Seggelke: Field Office Supervisor and DCP (Child Protective Services) Investigator.
10. John Henderson: Labor Relations Administrator.
11. Tom Putting: Chief of Personnel.
12. John Bucari: Administrator of Management Services.
In September 1989, Ryan was removed from the Springfield Regional Office and placed on special assignment. Villiger requested she draft a Child Welfare Initiative to identify problems and solutions within DCFS. Ryan sought Gillespie's assistance. Upon completion, Villiger ordered them to remove all references and criticisms which they described in the Child Welfare Initiative which would have reflected adversely on his supervision. He then told them to remove their names claiming Gordon Johnson would be more receptive if their names did not appear on the document. Ryan and Gillespie provided an unedited copy to Jess McDonald, who was, at that time, the Governor's liaison to DCFS.
In December of 1989, a former DCFS client, Linda Gerhardt, claimed that she was improperly pressured into giving up her youngest child for adoption by Patrick Flynn. Flynn was under the supervision of Villiger, not Ryan or Gillespie. According to Plaintiffs, this led to a decision by Johnson, Villiger, and Horstman, in May 1990, to have the State Police investigate the handling of the Gerhardt case and the Springfield Region. Neither Ryan nor Gillespie were informed of the investigation.
The police interviewed Flynn who claimed that he had made the "baby deal" with Gerhardt at the direction of Ryan. Ryan claims that Flynn proposed the idea to her and she rejected it. Plaintiffs claim Flynn was well-known as a liar and had a reputation as a child molester. He had been investigated for allegations of child molestation. The investigation found merit to the claim but after an internal appeal the investigation was reversed. Plaintiffs also claim Flynn had close ties to Villiger and performed investigative work for Villiger.
A number of other "disgruntled employees" who were allegedly referred to the police investigators by Villiger and Flynn made statements concerning Ryan and Gillespie. These employees included Bucari, Moody, Sakolsky, and Seggelke.
In January 1990, Gillespie and two others selected Frank Melchiorri for the position of Springfield Regional Business Administrator. Melchiorri was a veteran, 65 years of age, and had been the Acting Business Manager for two years. Villiger refused to approve Melchiorri for the position until Gillespie stated that Melchiorri would file an age discrimination suit if he was not selected and that Gillespie would testify on his behalf. In July 1990, Gillespie chose Patti Lynch for the Adoption Coordinator's position. Again, Villiger refused to approve the appointment until Gillespie stated that Lynch would file a sex discrimination suit if she was not appointed and that Gillespie would testify on her behalf.
In June 1990, Jess McDonald replaced Johnson as Acting Director of DCFS. McDonald knew of the State Police investigation of the Springfield Region but was never apprised by anyone that Ryan and Gillespie were engaged in any wrongdoing.
On January 21, 1991, Sue Suter replaced Jess McDonald as Acting Director. During the months of December 1990 and January 1991, DCFS in general and the Springfield Region in particular were the subject of criticism in the local newspaper, The State Journal-Register. Gillespie and Ryan suspected the information was being fed to the press by Villiger and Flynn. They spoke to Horstman about their concerns but claim Horstman replied that nothing could be done.
In response to this negative publicity, Suter, on January 24, 1991, asked Villiger to brief her on the Springfield Region. Villiger stated that the Springfield Region was one of the most difficult to supervise from the Central Office. The memo was also critical of Ryan and Gillespie and recommended their removal. Horstman provided a memo to Suter on January 31, 1991, which summarized the State Police findings and recommended removing Plaintiffs from their position and transferring them to the Central Office, unless further information developed that would require discipline.
In February 1991, Gillespie and Ryan were informed that they were being removed from their positions as Regional Administrator and Assistant Regional Administrator, effective immediately. They were ordered to leave their offices within 24 hours. Villiger informed them that they were being placed on special assignment. Each was assigned to an old storage room in DCFS's Central Office with no support staff and no telephone. Both filed grievances, alleging their reassignment was punitive. Villiger, Henderson, Suter, and Veicht claimed the re-assignment was a special assignment due to their special skills. Ryan and Gillespie remained in this situation from February 1991 until December 31, 1991.
After their removal, special Internal DCFS Task Forces were established to investigate whether Ryan or Gillespie had engaged in any wrongdoing. According to Plaintiffs, no evidence of wrongdoing was discovered.
On June 11, 1991, Suter received a partial summary of the State Police investigation. The State's Attorney of Sangamon County declined to take any action based on the report.
On June 21, 1991, Veicht directed Henderson to review the State Police Report and draft charges against Ryan and Gillespie. Among the possible basis for discipline were 1) Gillespie's contact with Representative Curran; 2) Ryan's statements to the Chicago Tribune; 3) Gillespie's poetry; and 4) Ryan's religious beliefs. No independent investigation was conducted.
On July 10, 1991, Villiger gave Gillespie a good evaluation and recommended a 4.5 percent raise. No mention of misconduct was raised in the evaluation.
In September 1991, Ryan and Gillespie attended a grievance hearing continuing to protest their re-assignment. The grievances were denied. On September 24, 1991, Villiger sent a memo to Tony Jenkins, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Field Operations, stating that he felt that Ryan and Gillespie would take their grievance to the fourth level, Central Management Services (CMS). Villiger was concerned that the persons to whom Ryan and Gillespie had been assigned were working on projects that the administration felt would not be appropriate for Ryan and Gillespie to work on. Thus, there was a major issue regarding future tasks for the future assignments. Villiger was concerned that unless the issue was resolved, CMS might rule against DCFS at the fourth level grievance.
A few days after the September grievance hearing, Ryan's husband, who had been ill, died. On her first day back, Ryan found that the desk and chair in her office had been removed. After several days, the items were returned. Plaintiff Ryan claims Villiger was responsible.
On October 2, 1991, the State Police closed their investigation. The closing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sixth Angel Shepherd Rescue Inc. v. Susan West
...First Amendment retaliation claim. Park v. Veasie, 720 F.Supp.2d 658, 669–70 (M.D.Pa.2010); see also Ryan v. Ill. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 963 F.Supp. 1490, 1518 (C.D.Ill.1997), rev'd on other grounds, 185 F.3d 751 (7th Cir.1999). The protected conduct Sixth Angel identifies is it......