HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/1999 CS minutes
MAYOR
Gerald L. Farley
(847) 392-6000
(847) 392-6022
(847) 392-6064
TRUSTEES
Timothy J. Corcoran
Paul Wm. Hoefer!
Richard M. Lohrstorfer
Janiel A. Nocchi
Michaele W. Skowron
Irvana K. Wilks
Phone:
Fax:
TOO:
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Janonis
1D!L'@ffd ~~
Village of Mount Prospect
100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
VILLAGE CLERK
Velma W. Lowe
MINUTES
CLOSED SESSION
MAY 18,1999
~M[b[1 [}B[g[1 [2/G@~
.IID~if~ 3 -.;;-~o
The Closed Session was convened to discuss litigation at 6:08 p.m. Present were:
Mayor Gerald Farley, Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Richard Lohrstorfer, Daniel Nocchi,
Michaele Skowron and Irvana Wilks. Trustee Paul Hoefert arrived at 6:15 p.m. Staff
present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David
Strahl, Police Chief Ronald Pavlock, Deputy Police Chief Thomas Daley, Police
Commander Dick Draffone, Police Sergeant John Dahlberg, Village Attorneys Everette
Hill and Lance Malina and Attorney Elizabeth Knight.
Litigation
Village Manager Janonis provided an introduction as to which the parties were present
at the meeting. He requested Betty Knight to provide an overview of the three pending
cases and an outline of the strategic issues related to each case.
Attorney Elizabeth Knight stated the three cases are all inter-related because of the
Plaintiffs' attorney.
Javier Martinez v. Village of Mount Prospect, Chief Ronald Pavlock, Deputy Chief
Thomas Daley, Police Commander Dick Draffone and Police Sergeant Dahlberg
Case: This is a Discrimination Case that had been filed under Title VII of the Federal
Courts claiming discrimination and also filed under 42 USC 1983 Statutes relating to
Government liability and individuals. Martinez was a probationary Officer who was
terminated for poor performance. Attorney Knight stated that the Case has gone
through Summary Judgment, which was denied by the Judge because the Judge found
the material issue of fact in the Case. The Case is expected to proceed to trial with a
trial date set sometime this summer. There is another opportunity to get a Summary
Judgment type issue ruled on during the trial phase called a Rule 50 Review of
Evidence Brief. She also explained the transferring of the burden of proof through the
Court process regarding this Case. She stated this is an employment case. The
employee has admitted to not performing and the poor performance has been
documented. She acknowledges, as does the former employee that there is no proof of
employment discrimination; therefore, he is attempting to assassinate the character of
the Department claiming that the Department targets Hispanics; therefore, the causal
connection for the Discrimination claim.
o
r"'1 ~-l
( ,
I
l I:
L~I
~1
d~
d[i=J
2)~
I!!!J@)
Martinez has offered a settlement offer of reinstatement, back wages, money for
emotional distress and removal of all performance information from his file. Total
Settlement cost is projected around $450,000.
Medrano v. Village of Mount Prospect. This is a very similar Case. He is also
claiming employment discrimination, however, he is currently still an Officer with the
Village. Both cases point to the fact that the Department makes Officers make numbers
in terms of activity and neither former Officer or current Officer Medrano particularly
want to be held to this standard, therefore, the claim has been filed.
Village Attorney Lance Malina stated the performance standards are set based on
diligent Officers performing work as a Police Officer. Officers are provided targets for
which they are to meet on a monthly basis. If they tend to be short near the end of the
month, they will target higher crime activity areas which are exclusively Hispanic.
Attorney Betty Knight stated that through the Deposition phase, no Officer claimed that
any arrests were in violation of the Fourth Amendment and probable cause existed on
all arrests. She stated that additional Discovery is underway because of the repeated
allegations that Officers are targeting minorities through profiling or racial targeting.
Village Attorney Lance Malina stated that profiling, as defined has been held to be
Constitutional and Officers look for specific things to match a profile. As long as the
Officer has probable cause, then the Officer can stop regardless of the type of person
who is stopped. The Department does not follow profiling as a practice.
Attorney Betty Knight stated that there is a discussion underway by management to
determine whether an investigation is necessary through a statistical review of arrest
records. She stated the Plaintiff must prove he is a member of a protected class which
is a given, and that he was performing the duties to the satisfaction of the employer
which obviously he was not. Since the Plaintiff cannot prove these two items, he is
claiming discrimination in the actual enforcement activities of the Department.
Moser v. Village of Mount Prospect. This Case arose out of a Deposition of the other
Cases, which was taken, and Moser has a claim of retaliation because of his exercise of
free speech in the public interest.
Settlement Demands:
Medrano is demanding $150,000 and removal of all performance standards from
the Department.
Moser is demanding $75,000 and he has provided credits to bring him up to a 20-
year member of the Department eligible for retirement and removal of
performance standards.
@j~
~1
~
d~
f@N)
d~
d[i=J
2)~
I!!!J@}
(.)
!!!!lJ'
~~
~l
d<(1
f@~
d~
d[i=J
2)~
I!!!J@)
Attorney Setty Knight recommends that the Cases continue and all settlement offers be
rejected. She feels that once the Martinez Case is concluded, hopefully, favorably for
the Village, the other two Cases will be withdrawn.
Village Manager Janonis stated that there are bigger issues regarding the operation of
the Department, which must be steadfastly defended. He stated that a consideration for
an independent investigation is underway to analyze arrest data in order to determine
whether the statistics bear out some of these allegations.
Consensus of the Village Board was to continue to aggressive defense of these
Cases as far as possible and not consider settlement offers at this time.
Closed Session adjourned at 7:43 p.m. and moved into Open Session.
~~S:3~
DAVID STRAHL
Assistant Village Manager
DS/rcc
1:\WIN\OFFICE\CLSDSESS\051899 Closed Session Minutes.doc