Jury Verdict Favors Village in Age Discrimination Lawsuit
Jury returns speedy verdict saying village staff and elected officials did not discriminate against former employee terminated during budget cuts because of her age.
A jury decided that the Village of Oak Lawn did not engage in age discrimination when it terminated a village employee one day shy of her 60th birthday in April 2008.
Diane Cipolla filed an age discrimination lawsuit against the village in February 2011, seeking $500,000 and other damages from the village.
Sign up for the Oak Lawn Patch newsletter and breaking news alerts.
Cipolla, now 64, was employed as a business regulation officer between 1996 and 2008 for the village finance department when she was terminated for “budgetary concerns.” Cipolla alleged she was terminated idue to her age and that village finance director Brian Hanigan told members of the village board in executive session that he “wanted to hire someone younger.”
The lawsuit did not name Hanigan individually as a defendant. The Illinois Department of Human Rights had earlier dismissed the discrimination complaint as “lacking in substantial evidence.”
After a four-day jury trial before Judge Thomas R. Mulroy in the Cook County Circuit Court’s Law Division, a jury handed back a unanimous verdict after less than two hours of deliberation in favor of the village on Thursday.
“The speed in which the jury returned a verdict in favor of the village … sends a clear message that neither village manager, Larry Deetjen, nor any of its elected officials discriminated against the plaintiff,” Paul O’Grady, the village’s attorney, said in a news release. “We are very happy to bring this matter to its successful conclusion on behalf of the [Oak Lawn] taxpayers.”
During the trial the village went up against a familiar litigator, Hinsdale-attorney Dana Kurtz, who won an $850,000 settlement on a sexual harassment lawsuit on behalf of Oak Lawn firefighter Sharon Januszewski.
Kurtz claimed that the jury was confused by the judge’s instructions. During their less than two hours’ of deliberation, Kurtz said jurors passed a note to the judge asking for “clarification” of what was meant by the term “fired.”
“The jury was confused by the judge’s instruction,” Kurtz said, "when in fact [the village] did put in a younger, less experienced employee [to replace Cipolla].”
Oak Lawn Village Board members present at the April 10, 2008 executive were called to testify on behalf of the village, including Mayor Dave Heilmann, and trustees Alex Olejniczak (Dist. 2), Carol Quinlan (Dist. 5) and Tom Phelan (Dist. 6).
Kurtz had promised a “surprise witness” who was present at the executive session, which turned out to be former Oak Lawn trustee, Jerry Hurckes. Hurckes was called as a witness for Cipolla.
Since being terminated by the village almost four years ago, Cipolla has not been able to find full-time employment. Kurtz said they are looking at their options for an appeal.
“I’m proud of Diane for standing up for her rights,” the attorney said. “Hopefully we can get justice for her.”
During trial preparation, the village board refused to turn over the audio tape and minutes of the April 10, 2008 executive session, which followed a contentious open board meeting discussing village layoffs and budget cuts.
The village claimed executive privilege because village personnel were discussed in executive session.
“If you get the minutes, let me know,” Kurtz said.
Clarification: Patch included details that Trustee Bob Streit (Dist. 3) and former Trustee Steven Rosenbaum ignored requests for depositions and and/or subpoenas based on inaccurate information. The Village of Oak Lawn attorneys maintain that the attorney for the plaintiff inappropriately contacted former Trustee Rosenbaum against court rules; Streit's deposition was scheduled--and canceled--several times by the plaintiff's attorney.
OakLawnGuy
12:05 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Sheesh, politics even creeps into this old case.
Dave W.
3:26 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Well, I've said it before, where there is smoke in this town, there are liars...
Blowing Smoke
12:05 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Finally a decent legal team defending Oak Lawn!
Streit's blowing off the court ordered subpoena shows his blatant disregard for the law. It's incredible that this man holds a public office.
Luther
12:45 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
It's Andy's fault he's still in office.
Denise
12:06 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Despicable
District 666 Resident
12:07 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Really, Lorraine? You quote Tom Phelan who doesn't talk about the case but instead attacks his fellow trustee! I thought that fat knucklehead quit.
There may be many reasons Rosenbaum and Streit didn't respond to the depositon and each is more likely than EX trustee Phelan's claim.
For one, the subpoena may have been delivered to the village attorneys and not Rosenbaum and Streit. Secondly, perhaps each gentleman didn't want to lie under oath. Thirdly, maybe they weren't given notice in time to change their work schedules. The list goes on and on. I know both these individuals and each has integrity and wouldn't ignore a subpoena. I'm wondering why Cipolla's attorney didn't call Streit and Rosenbaum as witnesses.
u make me laugh
12:52 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
streit= integrity??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!
He must have been busy aggregating electricity since i haven't seen one of his roofing signs in a loooooooooong time.
Maybe he just threw this subpoena on the stack with the rest of them and forgot.
He has managed to lie everywhere else why not under oath?
Thanks for the laugh 666 you really made my day. Streit has integrity!! HAHAHAHAHAHHAHH
Dave W.
3:26 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
To be clear, Resident666, if you were subpoened by the court but had a schedule conflict, you would ignore the court? Integrity or not, they did not show up, which is pretty much universally accepted as ignoring it unless they had some medical emergency. If THAT were the case, wouldn't you make it well known that was why, especially if you are Trustee Streit, who is already watched pretty avidly by those who disagree with him? I would have a note signed by my doctor and notarized and maybe a letter from the governor or something if I couldn't make it to court when summoned.
As for who it was delivered to, weird how the others all made it, just those two...so out of your three excuses for them, I would say that not wanting to lie under oath is the most likely. Not very upstanding of them to bail on telling the truth if that is the fact, but the most likely.
P. Mason
7:46 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
DAVEW, let's be clear! The court doesn't subpoena anyone. The attorneys subpoena witnesses. The court doesn't care who you call as a witness and the court allows the other side to depose that person well in advance of a trial. This isn't the Good Wife.
If the opposing counsel wanted to depose STreit or Rosenbaum, she had to actually notify them by subpoena and then a date is set up by the attorneys if there is a conflict. It happens every day in the real world so knock it off with your uninformed opinions based on watching the People's Court.
Homegrown in OL
10:36 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Too bad Diane's attorney didn't call me. I would have testified. I heard it from fat knucklehead's own mouth that Diane was too old and he wanted someone younger. Don't give up Diane. Phelan, aren't you a little worried that you are going to burn in hell for the things you've done? Why don't you just go away?
Dave W.
5:21 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
You know something, P. Mason? You are right. A little mean in getting there, but right nonetheless. I spoke out of turn about something I did not and do not have enough expertise or knowledge to talk about properly. While I might not agree with the premise of Resident666's post, I didn't present anything to counter the suppositions other than misinformed statements of my own.
Nobody likes being wrong, but we do not learn from always being right and I actually thank you for at least bringing me to reality about something I should have properly researched if I was going to speak about it. I imagine you are corect, though I do not know for certain as I still haven't gotten a chance to look up what you say. In any case, I hate the People's Court and all shows of that ilk. (Ironically because they cause the same response that you called me out on...) At least one person learned something from this thread, and it was me.
Thanks again and have a great day.
(No, none of this was sarcastic...)
Kiko
4:11 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Dave w you are the most annoying commenter because you think you know all the answers and do nothing but criticize everyone. You think you are an expert at real estate but you suck
Dave W.
5:14 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
I do not think I know everything...for instance, I do not know who names their kid or even themself 'Kiko', unless you are in the soy sauce business. There is lots of stuff I do not know, and I admit when I'm wrong all the time (see above, even though P.Mason was mean about calling me out, I admitted I was mistaken about how the legal process works, even though I didn't check P. Mason's facts, I'm presuming they are correct).
Also, I can see how I might be in the top ten, but c'mon, MOST annoying? You need to read more of these, I'm probably really only like number eight...
As for real estate, I never said I was expert, but I know more than the average person who does something else for a living. Just like I probably do not know, nor do you, what most other people do for a living BETTER than what THOSE people do. Unless it is YOU that is the expert on other things and knows everything...easy for you to criticize, isn't it since YOU didn't offer ANYTHING constructive to the debate, you only came to bash under a fake name...very creative, very helpful.
Really, I think that you just need a hug...
andy skoundrianos
9:01 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Let's look at the real facts the village won a lawsuit something that never happened when The Mayor was picking the legal team that's for sure!!!
Homegrown in OL
10:45 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
While they may be the real facts, they are not the true facts. Too bad the Village won when they are guilty of discrimination!
OakLawnGuy
10:50 am on Monday, February 4, 2013
I was thinking the same thing, and of course your comment, supported by your extensive expertise in vetting law firms and attorneys (such as Brennan's) convinced me. ;-/
rmoor12
8:23 am on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Tom Phelan calls the seniors the "Blue Hair" (his words, his mouth I have heard it from el bullo himself). Such a caring, lovable, community man who cares about our seniors.
Bob
9:18 am on Saturday, February 2, 2013
They won the lawsuit but some people and the Patch like to put a negitive spin on things for political reasons.
mur
2:21 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Sound like the good old boys club at work again. Liar, liars, your pants will be on fire if it goes to appellate court. Then all your butts will be on fire when it's proven that you lied. Some people never get it!. Its called perjury.
Yes, there is a reason why some cowards did not want to abide by the subpoenas. Maybe they new the truth and just showed their true colors, afraid of what the good old boys would do or think. Just ignore the subpoena and it might go away and you can continue to hide or feel safe from implementing any one, because of the information you might know. Its called being coward. You big wisps! A real man would not be afraid to dare to be different and be their true self, and tell the truth despite what others think.
Typical Oak Lawn business as usual. I'm glad than you showed your true colors to the voters of the village and your family. You'll have to live with your self's.
Wake up O.L. employees & voters. You could be next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!