Shakman v. DEMOCRATIC ORGAN. OF COOK COUNTY

569 F. Supp. 177, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17982
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedApril 4, 1983
Docket69 C 2145
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 569 F. Supp. 177 (Shakman v. DEMOCRATIC ORGAN. OF COOK COUNTY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shakman v. DEMOCRATIC ORGAN. OF COOK COUNTY, 569 F. Supp. 177, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17982 (N.D. Ill. 1983).

Opinion

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.I11.1979). 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 *179 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lanahan v. County of Cook
N.D. Illinois, 2018
Matthew Bonnstetter v. City of Chicago
811 F.3d 969 (Seventh Circuit, 2016)
Greene v. Cook County Sheriff's Office
79 F. Supp. 3d 790 (N.D. Illinois, 2015)
Healy, Dennis v. City of Chicago
450 F.3d 732 (Seventh Circuit, 2006)
Healy v. City Of Chicago
450 F.3d 732 (Seventh Circuit, 2006)
Kozlowski v. Fry
238 F. Supp. 2d 996 (N.D. Illinois, 2002)
Phelan v. City of Chicago
226 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Illinois, 2002)
Brennan v. Daley
777 F. Supp. 1426 (N.D. Illinois, 1991)
Shakman v. Democratic Organization of Cook County
919 F.2d 455 (Seventh Circuit, 1990)
Gamboa v. Washington
716 F. Supp. 353 (N.D. Illinois, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
569 F. Supp. 177, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shakman-v-democratic-organ-of-cook-county-ilnd-1983.