Shakman v. DEMOCRATIC ORGAN. OF COOK COUNTY

• Decision Date: 04 April 1983
• Docket Number: No. 69 C 2145.,69 C 2145.
• Citation: 569 F. Supp. 177
• Parties: Michael L. SHAKMAN and Paul M. Lurie, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF COOK COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

569 F. Supp. 177

Michael L. SHAKMAN and Paul M. Lurie, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION OF COOK COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

No. 69 C 2145.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

April 4, 1983.

Robert Plotkin, Plotkin & Jacobs, Ltd., C. Richard Johnson, Isham, Lincoln & Beale, Roger R. Fross, Lord Bissell & Brook, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Francis J. Higgins, John J. Verscaj, Larry L. Thompson, Bell, Boyd & Lloyd, Chicago, Ill., for defendants, City of Chicago and Mayor Jane M. Byrne.

Peter Fitzpatrick, Peter Fitzpatrick & Associates, Chicago, Ill., for defendants, The Democratic Organization of Cook County and other designated defendants.

Richard M. Daley, State's Atty. of Cook County by Timothy J. Murphy, Asst. State's Atty., Chicago, Ill., for defendants of Cook County, George W. Dunne, President, Board of Com'rs of Cook County, Richard J. Elrod, Sheriff, Thomas C. Hynes, Assessor, Stanley T. Kupser, Jr., Clerk, Edward J. Rosewell, Treasurer.

Mark K. Schoenfield, Jerome H. Torshen, Jerome H. Torshen, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., for defendant, Morgan M. Finley, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

Robert E. Wiss, Jeff D. Harris, Foran, Wiss & Schultz, Chicago, Ill., for defendant, The Chicago Park Dist.

JUDGMENT

BUA, District Judge.

The instant Judgment represents the implementation order with regard to the hiring aspect of the Shakman case. The case began in 1969 when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Marovitz, J., dismissed the complaint of the plaintiffs. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 310 F.Supp. 1398 (N.D.Ill.1969). On appeal from the dismissal, the Seventh Circuit reversed. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 435 F.2d 267 (7th Cir.1970). After the Supreme Court denied certiorari, 402 U.S. 909, 91 S.Ct. 1383, 28 L.Ed.2d 650 (1971), settlement negotiations began. On May 5, 1972, the Court approved and entered a Consent Decree relating to those employees already hired as government employees. In essence, the Decree purported to free the government employees from all coercion and employment discrimination based on political considerations.¹ See, Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 481 F.Supp. 1315, 1356 (N.D.Ill.1979).²

On September 24, 1979, this Court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 481 F.Supp. 1315 (N.D.Ill.1979). The Court essentially found that in hiring persons for governmental employment, the defendants listed in Paragraph C below illegally conditioned, based, and affected the hiring of persons for government employment upon and because of their political sponsorship, affiliation and support. In so holding, the Court left the specific form of the remedy for another time. Numerous hearings have been held and voluminous memoranda have been considered concerning the form of relief as it is presented herein.

The Judgment is entered to provide relief for the violations of plaintiffs' rights as determined in the September 24, 1979 order and to prevent further such violations. The Court is authorized to enter such relief under its equity powers as recognized in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 75 S.Ct. 753, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955). See also, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971).

As required by Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U.S. 284, 96 S.Ct. 1538, 47 L.Ed.2d 792 (1976), the nature of the relief contained herein has been tailored to fit the nature and extent of the violations which have been found. The Judgment goes no further than to attempt to eliminate political considerations in the hiring of government employees. It does not impose a civil service system nor does it necessitate that a merit system be utilized.

Therefore, it is hereby Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as follows:

A. Jurisdiction. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties to this Judgment and of the subject matter of this action under Sections 1331 and 1343(3) of Title 28 of the United States Code.

B. Definitions. As used in this Judgment (1) the term "Government Employment" means any employment (whether full-time or part-time, permanent or temporary, and regardless of whether the employment is paid for by Federal funds) by or for the City of Chicago or any employment within the Northern District of Illinois by or for the County of Cook or any other nonfederal governmental officer or entity; (2) the terms "Governmental Employee" and "Employee" mean a person employed in Governmental Employment; (3) the term "Exempt Position" means a Governmental Employment job, which is determined to be exempt from the provisions of Paragraphs D and E of the Consent Judgments and Paragraphs D through M, inclusive, of this Judgment, all as provided in Paragraph N below; (4) the term "Consent Judgments" means the Judgments previously entered in this case as to defendants listed in Paragraph C below upon the consent of plaintiffs and various defendants on May 5, 1972, April 3, 1978, and June 27, 1980; and (5) the term "Defendant Public Employer" means each defendant listed in Paragraph C which is a governmental unit or who is a governmental officeholder (and the successors in office to those persons).

C. Persons Bound. The provisions of this Judgment apply to the following: (1) Defendants: CITY OF CHICAGO; JANE M. BYRNE, individually and as Mayor of the City of Chicago; FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF COOK COUNTY, Illinois; CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT; RICHARD J. ELROD, individually and as Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois; MORGAN M. FINLEY, individually and as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; EDWARD J. ROSEWELL, individually and as Treasurer of Cook County, Illinois; STANLEY J. KUSPER, JR., individually and as Clerk of Cook County, Illinois; THOMAS C. HYNES, individually and as Assessor of Cook County, Illinois; GEORGE W. DUNNE, individually, as President of the Board of Commissioners of Cook County, Illinois and as President of the Board of Commissioners of the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Illinois; DEMOCRATIC PARTY COUNTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE FOR COOK COUNTY and its members; EDWARD R. VRDOLYAK, individually and as Chairman of the Democratic Party County Central Committee for Cook County, Illinois; (2) their successors in each of those capacities; (3) the present and future officers, members, agents, servants, employees and attorneys of each of those Defendants and others named or referred to in this paragraph; and (4) all others in active concert or participation with Defendants or others named or referred to in this paragraph who receive actual notice of this Judgment, by personal service or otherwise.

D. Declaratory Relief. It is hereby declared that the conditioning, basing, or affecting of the hiring of Governmental Employees (other than for Exempt Positions) upon or because of any political reason or factor including, without limitation, any prospective employee's political affiliation, political support or activity, political financial contributions, promises of such political support, activity or financial contributions or such prospective employee's political sponsorship or recommendation is prohibited.

E. Injunction. Defendants and all others named or referred to in Paragraph C above are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly, in whole or in part:

(1) conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or affecting the hiring of any person as a Governmental Employee (other than for Exempt Positions), upon or because of any political reason or factor including, without limitation, any prospective employee's political affiliation, political support or activity, political financial contributions, promises of such political support, activity or financial contributions, or such prospective employee's political sponsorship or recommendation; or

(2) knowingly inducing, aiding, abetting, participating in, cooperating with the commission of any act which is proscribed by this Paragraph E, or threatening to commit any act proscribed by this Paragraph E.

F. Plan of Compliance. Each Defendant Public Employer shall, not later than 120 days from the date this Judgment becomes effective, file with the Court, with copies to all parties to this Judgment, a Plan of Compliance to implement this Judgment.

The Plan of Compliance shall set forth in detail a method or methods of hiring to be used for all Governmental Employment positions (other than Exempt Positions) with that employer. Each such method of hiring shall establish criteria for hiring which shall establish on an objective basis that the method complies with Paragraphs D and E above. The method or methods of hiring set forth in the Plan of Compliance shall be within the discretion of the Defendant Public Employer, as long as the method or methods comply with the requirements of this Judgment.

Each Plan of Compliance shall also provide for the instruction of persons having responsibility for hiring as to the requirements of this Judgment and the Plan of Compliance and shall provide for the monitoring of compliance with this Judgment and the Plan of Compliance.

Any party believing that the Plan of Compliance of any Defendant Public Employer is not in compliance with this Judgment, or is inadequate to ensure compliance with this Judgment may apply to the Court for further orders to enforce compliance, including directing changes in the Plan of Compliance. Within one year of the date this Judgment becomes effective, each Defendant Public Employer shall implement the Plan of Compliance as so filed and as it may be so changed.

A Plan of Compliance may contain provisions providing for the means by which hiring methods may be changed, consistent with this Judgment, and shall provide for appropriate notice to be given the parties of such proposed changes.

G. Notices of Job Availability. Each Defendant Public...