Case: Doe v. Cook County

1:99-cv-03945 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: June 15, 1999

Closed Date: 2016

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 15, 1999, four juveniles detained at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center (JTDC) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs sued Cook County and the JTDC under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of their Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, the complaint alleged gross mismanagement of the JTDC leading to overcrowding, unsafe and unsanitary facilities, inadequate medical, dental, and mental health care, physical violence and abuse by residents and staff, unfair discipline, and inadequate access to education. The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, sought declaratory and injunctive relief. This case was assigned to Judge John Robert Blakey.

On December 22, 1999, the court certified a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who "have been, are, or will be confined at the JTDC."

The parties spent several months negotiating the proposed resolution of this case under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Ashmann. On December 30, 2002, the parties’ settlement agreement was approved. Substantial compliance with the settlement agreement would be achieved when the defendants hired new management and additional staff, increased security, and developed an improved disciplinary protocol. Pursuant to the agreement, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. The court retained jurisdiction to enter any orders necessary to enforce or modify the agreement.

On November 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a petition for the court to declare the defendants in violation of the settlement agreement and order them into substantial compliance with all its terms within six months. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants had a pattern of noncompliance with the settlement agreement and the JTDC remained in gross mismanagement. Particularly, the defendants never produced an adequate implementation plan to enforce the settlement agreement, failed to hire competent and experienced management, remained severely understaffed, failed to maintain adequate control and security within the JTDC, and continued using arbitrary and harsh disciplinary procedures.

The parties renegotiated the settlement. An agreed-upon supplemental order was approved on May 18, 2006. Its primary objective was to ensure the JTDC was in substantial compliance with the original settlement agreement within eight months. The parties agreed to heightened monitoring through a third party administrator and a curriculum of training and counseling for staff members engaging in egregious conduct.

On May 29, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to appoint a receiver to ensure compliance with the original settlement agreement and the supplemental order. The plaintiffs claimed that the conditions of the JTDC were arguably worse than at the beginning of the lawsuit and that the County Board flagrantly and consistently violated the court's orders. The plaintiffs asserted that youth housed at JTDC had a high risk of suicide, received inadequate mental health and medical services, were regularly abused by staff and other residents, and were not provided with basic necessities. They further contended that staff were incompetent, and operated without adequate management or oversight.

On July 6, 2007, Teamster Local Union No. 714, the exclusive bargaining representative for JTDC employees, moved to intervene. The Union claimed that doing so was necessary to allow them to adequately consult with the parties over a possible settlement and to prepare for trial.

After Illinois enacted legislation transferring administration of the JTDC from the executive branch of Cook County to the Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County (OCJ), the plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their motion to appoint a receiver. In exchange, on August 14, 2007, the court approved an agreed order appointing a transitional administrator (TA). The TA was tasked with achieving substantial compliance with the original settlement agreement and supplemental order. The TA was also required to regularly report to the court and apprise the parties of the current conditions at the JTDC and actions taken to bring the JTDC into substantial compliance.

On April 15, 2008, the TA filed an emergency motion for the court to allow them to waive County Ordinances related to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Union and the JTDC. This would allow the TA to enter into a temporary security staffing contract to fix the critical shortage of security staff members at the JTDC. On the same day, the Union filed another motion to intervene in order to object to the TA’s emergency motion. The Union requested to intervene for the same reasons on a July 6, 2007 motion. Additionally, it alleged that the proposed emergency order pertained to a collective bargaining agreement and would affect its members.

The Union’s motion to intervene was granted on May 2, 2008. Three days later, the Union filed a memo opposing the TA’s emergency motion to contract security staffing. The Union stated that the TA never discussed staffing needs with the Union and their emergency order would affect JTDC employees’ seniority rights and their ability to choose their shift and days off and assigned units. Further, the Union claimed that the court lacked authority to grant the requested relief and the open-ended suspension of the County Ordinances was overly broad.

On May 8, 2008, the TA’s emergency motion to retain a private company to provide temporary security staffing at JTDC was granted. The court also suspended all local and state laws regarding the collective bargaining agreement between the defendants and the Union. The court made this decision after concluding that the situation at JTDC constituted an emergency since it was dangerously understaffed and posed a health and safety risk to its residents. On June 6, 2008, the Union appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regarding the court’s decision to suspend local and state laws regarding unions.

On November 11, 2008, the TA submitted a report updating the court about staffing and contract services at JTDC. The report said that the TA had been contracted for temporary security services and there had been improvements in hiring, conditions, and operational culture at the JTDC. However, hiring qualified and permanent employees remained a challenge and there was still excessive absenteeism among security staff.

After the case was transferred to Judge James Holderman, the Union requested that their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit be remanded. They did so because the court stated it would likely grant the Union’s motion to modify the appealed judgment. Specifically, the court stated that they were inclined to alter the court’s May 8, 2008 order to make it clear that laws and ordinances regarding the Collective Bargaining Agreement were not suspended. This motion was granted on January 27, 2009.

On March 12, 2009, the court entered an agreed order regarding the disputed firing of four employees as a result of their conduct towards children at the JTDC. The employees were given new positions that had no contact with any of the children. Failure to follow this order would result in a review by the Magistrate Judge.

On October 9, 2009, the TA submitted a second report apprising the parties of the status of JTDC’s staffing crisis. The report noted that the TA had hired dozens of new permanent employees, opened five new residential living centers, and established additional support services for staff. Changes had been made to ensure residents at the JTDC’s safety, including the addition of cameras and safe rooms. In order to comply with the Administrator Office of the Illinois Court’s (AOIC) rules regarding employment qualification, the report noted that all employees hired since August 2007 were required to have bachelor’s degrees. However, many employees hired before August 2007 did not and continued to work with the JTDC’s residents. To comply with the AOIC rules, the TA proposed creating new job descriptions for direct care workers at the JTDC thus requiring current direct care workers to “reapply” for these new positions, imposing the requirement that they have a bachelor’s degree.

The Union objected to the TA’s proposal to change job descriptions and require Union members to reapply. On June 23, 2010, the court approved the TA’s proposed staffing plan. The court noted that the proposed plan did not exceed the scope of the TA’s mandate; the TA did not have a duty to engage in mandatory bargaining regarding the proposed requalification standards with the Union; and the proposed plan did not violate any due process rights and complied with the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 2010 WL 2610644.

On July 22, 2010, the Union appealed the court’s June 23, 2010 order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Union specifically questioned the court allowing the TA to change job descriptions at the JTDC and therefore require current staff to reapply for positions.

On November 3, 2010, the court denied the Union’s motion for an injunction or stay of the proposed staffing order pending a ruling by the Seventh Circuit. The court held that any irreparable harm to Union members posed by the staffing plan was speculative, the public interest was in favor of implementing the proposed plan, and that the Union has not demonstrated a significant probability of success on appeal.

While the Union’s appeal was pending, the TA continued to file reports apprising the court of the staffing plan’s status. The third report was submitted to the court on March 9, 2011; the fourth report on November 26, 2012; the fifth report on April 8, 2013; and the sixth report on January 10, 2014. In the sixth report, the TA stated that the JTDC was close to being in substantial compliance with the 2002 settlement agreement. The TA still had to complete several capital projects to provide upgraded infrastructure and resources to the JTDC, ensure a smooth transition of the JTDC to the OCJ, and prepare for an increase in the number of youth held at the JTDC after new Illinois legislation increased the age for juvenile-court jurisdiction from 17 to 18.

On May 15, 2015, the court entered a Concluding Order transferring administrative control of the JTDC from the TA to OCJ.

On August 17, 2015, five years after the Union initially appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the appellate court reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the district court’s approval of the TA’s staffing plan violated the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Under the PLRA, relief that violates state law and is not “necessary” to solve a violation of federal law is forbidden. The appellate court held that the proposed order was forbidden since cutting the Union out of discussions regarding the JTDC’s staffing was not authorized by state law. However, the appellate court acknowledged that it would be impossible to restore the Union members to their old positions. Instead, the appellate court remanded the case to the district court to determine what other forms of relief, such as financial compensation or preferential hiring for future openings, would be appropriate. 798 F.3d 558.

Following remand, the parties began confidential settlement discussions. On April 14, 2016, the parties informed the court that all of their issues had been resolved. The court granted the parties agreed stipulation to dismiss on May 25, 2016.

	Document
1:99-cv-03945 08-02422 10-02746	Docket [PACER]	May 25, 2016	May 25, 2016 Docket
1:99-cv-03945	Memorandum Opinion and Order	Nov. 22, 1999	Nov. 22, 1999 Order/Opinion 1999 WL 1069244
41 1:99-cv-03945	Agreed Order Vacating Dismissal	Feb. 22, 2000	Feb. 22, 2000 Order/Opinion
1:99-cv-03945	Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement	Oct. 3, 2002	Oct. 3, 2002 Pleading / Motion / Brief
71 1:99-cv-03945	Order Approving Agreement	Dec. 30, 2002	Dec. 30, 2002 Order/Opinion
129-2 1:99-cv-03945	Agreed Supplemental Order	May 18, 2006	May 18, 2006 Settlement Agreement
415 1:99-cv-03945	Order [Granting the Emergency Motion of the Transitional Administrator]	May 8, 2008	May 8, 2008 Order/Opinion
458 1:99-cv-03945	Report of the Transitional Administrator	Nov. 11, 2008	Nov. 11, 2008 Findings Letter/Report
498 1:99-cv-03945	Agreed Order	March 12, 2009	March 12, 2009 Order/Opinion
530 1:99-cv-03945	Second Report of the Transitional Administrator	Oct. 9, 2009	Oct. 9, 2009 Findings Letter/Report

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT - Civil cover sheet - Appearance(s) of Benjamin S. Wolf and Susan Gail Wishnick as attorney(s) for Jimmy Doe, Willie Roe, Johnny Woe and Danny Zoe ( Two originals and two copies summons(es) issued.) ( Documents: 1-1 through 1-3) (jmp) (Entered: 06/16/1999)	June 15, 1999	June 15, 1999 PACER
	RECEIPT regarding payment of filing fee paid; on 6/15/99 in the amount of $ 150.00, receipt # 2728. (jmp)	June 15, 1999	June 15, 1999 PACER
2	ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Jimmy Doe, Willie Roe, Johnny Woe, Danny Zoe by Jean MacLean Snyder (jmp)	June 16, 1999	June 16, 1999 PACER
4	MOTION by plaintiffs' to maintain class action ; Notice (jmp) (Entered: 08/09/1999)	June 24, 1999	June 24, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 6/24/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Noticed motion to maintain a class action set for 3:30 8/4/99 No notice (tlp)	June 24, 1999	June 24, 1999 PACER
5	MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs' in support of its motion to maintain class action [4-1]; Notice (jmp) (Entered: 08/09/1999)	June 24, 1999	June 24, 1999 PACER
6	MOTION by defendants' to extend the time within which to answer, move, or otherwise plead to plaitniffs' complaint ; Notice (jmp) (Entered: 08/09/1999)	July 6, 1999	July 6, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 7/6/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Noticed motion to extend the time within which to answer, move, or otherwise plead to plaintiffs' complaint set for 3:30 8/3/99 No notice (tlp)	July 6, 1999	July 6, 1999 PACER
3	ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Cook Co and Jesse Doyle by Patrick Malone Blanchard and Michael David Jacobs (jmp)	July 6, 1999	July 6, 1999 PACER
7	MOTION by plaintiff to appoint a next friend (Attachments); Notice (jmp) (Entered: 08/09/1999)	July 26, 1999	July 26, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 7/26/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Noticed motion to appoint a next friend set for 2:30 8/4/99 No notice (tlp)	July 26, 1999	July 26, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 7/28/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Noticed motion to appoint a next friedn set for 3:30 8/4/99 No notice (tlp)	July 28, 1999	July 28, 1999 PACER
8	MINUTE ORDER of 8/4/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing set at 2:30 p.m. on 10/05/99. Defendants' given until 03/31/99 to file responsive brief to plaintiffs' motion to maintain class action [4-1]. Plaintiffs' reply brief to be filed by 09/14/99. Defendants' motion for extension of time within which to answer, move, or otherwise plead to plaintiffs' complaint is granted [6-1] until 08/14/99. If a motion to dismiss is filed, plaintiffs' responsive brief shall be filed by 09/08/99. Defendants' reply brief due 09/20/99. Plaintiffs' motion to appoint a next friend is granted [7-1]. Court approves and appoints Thomas F. Geraghty to serve as plaintiffs' next friend for proposed class plaintiffs'. Court will refer case to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Ashman for supervision of discovery and entry of pretrial material. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 08/09/1999)	Aug. 4, 1999	Aug. 4, 1999 PACER
9	REFERRAL ORDER of 8/9/99: The case is referred to the Hon. Martin C. Ashman from Hon. John A. Nordberg for discovery supervision. Preparation of pretrial materials. (See reverse of minute order.) Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 08/10/1999)	Aug. 9, 1999	Aug. 9, 1999 PACER
13	MOTION by Cook Co and Jesse Doyle to dismiss plaintiff's complaint ; Notice (jmp) (Entered: 09/20/1999)	Aug. 18, 1999	Aug. 18, 1999 PACER
14	MOTION by Cook Co, Jesse Doyle to file memorandum of law in excess of 15 pages in support of their motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint ; notice (jmp) (Entered: 09/20/1999)	Aug. 18, 1999	Aug. 18, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 8/20/99 by Hon. Martin C. Ashman : Status hearing set to 10:00 9/10/99 before Magistrate Judge Ashman in courtroom 2214. Mailed notice (is)	Aug. 20, 1999	Aug. 20, 1999 PACER
	MAILED 08/26/99: Rule 3.15 letter to Alexander Dimitrief and Barry F. Irwin. Forwarded 08/26/99: Appearance form of Alexander Dimitrief and Barry F. Irwin and copy of Rule 3.15 letter to Judge Nordberg. (eav)	Aug. 26, 1999	Aug. 26, 1999 PACER
10	MINUTE ORDER of 8/30/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Leave is granted as to Alexander Dimitrief and Barry Irwin to file their appearances on behalf of plaintiffss. No notice (jmp) (Entered: 08/31/1999)	Aug. 30, 1999	Aug. 30, 1999 PACER
11	ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Jimmy Doe, Willie Roe, Johnny Woe and Danny Zoe by Alexander Dimitrief and Barry F. Irwin (jmp)	Aug. 30, 1999	Aug. 30, 1999 PACER
12	RESPONSE by defendant Cook Co and Jessee Doyle to plaintiffs' motion to maintain class a action [4-1]; Notice (jmp) (Entered: 09/03/1999)	Aug. 31, 1999	Aug. 31, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 8/31/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Noticed motion noticed for 2:30 9/8/99 No notice (tlp)	Aug. 31, 1999	Aug. 31, 1999 PACER
15	MOTION by Cook Co, Jesse Doyle for leave to file corrected brief in response to plaintiffs' motion to maintain a class action ; Notice (jmp) (Entered: 09/20/1999)	Sept. 2, 1999	Sept. 2, 1999 PACER
16	MOTION by plaintiffs' for an extension of time to file response to defendants' motion to dismiss ; Notice (jmp) (Entered: 09/20/1999)	Sept. 3, 1999	Sept. 3, 1999 PACER
17	MINUTE ORDER of 9/8/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Defendants' motion to file corrected brief [15-1] in response to motion to maintain a class action is granted [4-1]. Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to file response to defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint [13-1] is granted to [16-1] 09/17/99; reply due 10/01/99; ruling by mail. Defendants' motion to file memorandum of law in excess of 15 pages in support of their motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint is granted [14-1] as to both sides. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 09/20/1999)	Sept. 8, 1999	Sept. 8, 1999 PACER
18	AGREED MOTION by plaintiff for an extension of time for them to file memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss ; Notice (jmp) (Entered: 09/22/1999)	Sept. 10, 1999	Sept. 10, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 9/10/99 by Hon. Martin C. Ashman : Status hearing held and continued to 10:00 9/30/99. Parties are to agree on a discovery schedule or present motions regarding discovery schedule by 9/30/99. Mailed notice (is)	Sept. 10, 1999	Sept. 10, 1999 PACER
19	MINUTE ORDER of 9/21/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Plaintiffs agreed motion for an order extending the time for them to file their memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss [18-1] plaintiff's complaint [13-1] and their reply memorandum in support of plaintiffs' motion to maintain class action is extended to 09/22/99; defendant to reply 10/04/99; reply due 09/28/99; ruling by mail. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 09/22/1999)	Sept. 21, 1999	Sept. 21, 1999 PACER
20	MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs' in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint [13-1]; Notice (jmp) (Entered: 09/27/1999)	Sept. 22, 1999	Sept. 22, 1999 PACER
21	REPLY by plaintiffs' in support of their motion to maintain a class action; Notice (jmp) (Entered: 10/01/1999)	Sept. 28, 1999	Sept. 28, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 9/30/99 by Hon. Martin C. Ashman : Status hearing held and continued to 10:00 12/13/99. Agreed discovery schedule to be submitted by parties. Mailed notice (is)	Sept. 30, 1999	Sept. 30, 1999 PACER
22	MINUTE ORDER of 10/1/99 by Hon. Martin C. Ashman : Enter agreed scheduling order. Factual discovery will be closed by 04/28/00. Discovery to be completed by 10/29/00. Parties will submit dispositive motions, if any, by 11/30/00. Entered Agreed Scheduling Order. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 10/04/1999)	Oct. 1, 1999	Oct. 1, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 10/5/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing reset to 2:30 10/12/99 . No notice (tlp)	Oct. 5, 1999	Oct. 5, 1999 PACER
23	MINUTE ORDER of 10/6/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Leave is granted to file the additional appearaances of Alex Dimitries, Barry Irwin, Paul Steadman and Michael Kazan on behalf of the plaintiffs. No notice (jmp) (Entered: 10/07/1999)	Oct. 6, 1999	Oct. 6, 1999 PACER
24	ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for Jimmy Doe, Willie Roe, Johnny Woe, and Danny Zoe by Alexander Dimitries, Barry F. Irwin, Paul R. Steadman and Michael W. Kazan (jmp)	Oct. 6, 1999	Oct. 6, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 10/12/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Status hearing held. No notice (tlp)	Oct. 12, 1999	Oct. 12, 1999 PACER
25	MOTION by plaintiffs' to compel responses to plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories and plaintiffs' first set of requests for the production of documents (Attachments); Notice (jmp) (Entered: 11/01/1999)	Oct. 26, 1999	Oct. 26, 1999 PACER
26	MINUTE ORDER of 10/29/99 by Hon. Martin C. Ashman : Motion to compel responses to plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories and plaintiffs' first set of requests for the production of documents [25-1] entered and continued to 11:30 a.m. on 11/22/99. Mailed notice (jmp). (Pursuant to the March 2011 Judicial Conference Policy requiring that remote access restrictions be implemented when placing scanned versions of previously filed paper documents on the record, this document is restricted to allow public access only at the Clerk's Office public access terminals.)Modified on 2/7/2018 (las, ).	Oct. 29, 1999	Oct. 29, 1999 PACER
27	REQUEST by plaintiffs for decision ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 11/22/1999)	Nov. 16, 1999	Nov. 16, 1999 PACER
	SCHEDULE set on 11/17/99 by Hon. John A. Nordberg : Noticed motion set for 2:30 11/18/99 No notice (tlp)	Nov. 17, 1999	Nov. 17, 1999 PACER

Case: Doe v. Cook County

1:99-cv-03945 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details