Caffarelli & Associates LtD

News

3 minutes read

Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. Prevails in Matters of First Impression

Published

Last week the Northern District of Illinois denied in full Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in the matter of Spratt v. Bellwood Public Library (18-cv-6573) in a case briefed by Alexis Martin of Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. Ms. Spratt worked for the Bellwood Public Library for 25 years, serving as the Director for the last 4 years of her tenure. Throughout her final three years of service, Ms. Spratt reported, objected to, and refused to participate in numerous unlawful activities, which, she alleges, resulted in a campaign of harassment against her including repeatedly trying to subvert her statutory authority as Director and remove her from her position. In June of 2017, Ms. Spratt filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Promptly following her charge, several Board members increased their harassment including instigating an investigation into Ms. Spratt, attempting to bar her from her office, and taking legal action against her. Ultimately, Ms. Spratt was forced to resign, but then was actually terminated and escorted from the premises prior to the effective date of her resignation.
Ms. Spratt filed a Complaint alleging retaliation in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and four counts of retaliation in violation of the Illinois Whistleblower Act. In its Motion, the Defendant argued, among other things, that the Tort Immunity Act barred the claims, she failed to state a claim for constructive discharge, and that she could not proceed with a claim of termination when she had already submitted her resignation. The Court rejected Defendant’s arguments and allowed Ms. Spratt’s claims to proceed. In its ruling, the Court found that the Tort Immunity Act does not apply to Illinois Whistleblower Act claims. The Court also held that Ms. Spratt can proceed under a theory of constructive discharge and actual termination because her resignation had not yet gone in to effect at the time the Defendant terminated her and barred her from the premises. The Court’s holding that the Tort Immunity Act does not apply to claims under the Illinois Whistleblower Act harmonizes the intention of both statues and strengthens the ability of public servants such as Ms. Spratt to seek recourse when subjected to retaliation for their efforts to root out public corruption. Moreover, recognizing that an employer may terminate the employee following a constructive discharge is a significant step in acknowledging the array of adverse actions that whistleblowers face.

Back to News

Recent Posts

Blog

A Call for Comprehensive Fee Shifting for Employment-Law Claims

By Alejandro Caffarelli, Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. Access to justice in employment law remains an elusive promise for the vast majority of American workers. While an array of federal and state laws purport to protect workers, the mechanisms for enforcing those rights are often inaccessible, rendering them meaningless. Administrative agencies and state equivalents tasked with investigating discrimination and wage violations, for example, are often chronically underfunded and subject to political erosion. As demonstrated by recent changes at the Equal Employment...

Read More
General

Supreme Court Bars State Administrative Hurdles for Federal Civil Rights Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday in the case of Williams v. Washington (No. 23-191) that an Alabama law requiring people to go through the state’s administrative process before filing federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 is unconstitutional. The 5-4 decision found that the law created an unfair barrier to asserting federal rights. The law, upheld by Alabama’s Supreme Court in 2023, required unemployment benefits claimants to complete the state’s appeals process before going to court....

Read More
General

Supreme Court Rules on FLSA Evidence Standards in Overtime Exemption Case

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that disputes over Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exemptions do not require heightened evidence standards. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, rejected employees’ arguments for a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, reaffirming that the preponderance of evidence standard is appropriate in civil litigation unless explicitly altered by statute, constitutional requirements, or precedent involving severe government actions. The case, EMD Sales Inc. v. Carrera, centered on whether a higher standard should apply in...

Read More