The appellate court issued a 32-page opinion, according to today’s (3/30/09) Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, written by Justice Robert E. Gordon that holds “ (1) The public defender is an entity capable of bringing suit; (2) Burnette had standing to contest Stroger’s actions; (3) Stroger lacked authority to impose unpaid furlough days on designated member’s of Burnette’s staff; and (4) Stroger lacked authority to select who would be laid off”. It is also reported that Stroger’s attorney and the Special Assistant State’s Attorney representing the Law Office of the Cook County Public Defender are working on crafting a settlement in this case before his term expires tomorrow.
Read the case by clicking this.
March 30th, 2009
I think this is a great victory for Ed and all the assistant public defenders!
March 30th, 2009
I guess that makes us 2-0.
March 30th, 2009
That’s a good last month for Ed. Big win for the office in both cases.
I also wonder how aware of the political situation the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court were. One can only speculate.
March 30th, 2009
True Winona but as a result perhaps, Ed has about 25 hours left on the job.
March 31st, 2009
Sounds like a well-earned victory.
March 31st, 2009
The opinion addresses these four issues: Issue 1: Right to Sue. “It makes no sense to create an entity that could not even defend its right to exist.” Issue 2: Standing to conteest specific acts of interference (President’s selection of staff to lay off and imposition of furlough days). on s “Thus, the public defender has standing to contest both the selection of whom to fire and the imposition of fourlough days on designated employees.” Issue 3: President’s authority to alter or terminate existing Board appropriations by unpaid furloughs. “[W]e find that Section 6-24007 does not provide the president with authority toimpose furlough days on designated members of the public defenders offic e. Issue 4: Whether the President has the authority to hire, terminate, replace, disciplien or direct the assignments of any APD, clerk or employee. “[W]e find that the president lacked the authority to select whom to hire, fire or retain among the public defender’s staff.” In other words, only the Public Defender can hire or fire staff from top to bottom now. Management’s employment is at staff is at the will and subject to his or her discretion and not the president’s.
March 31st, 2009
Quite ironic and not in the least bit funny that the very same man who lobbied to eliminate my job in Appeals (thereby depriving our clients of effective and prompt appellate review) is crowing about being vindicated by the Appellate Court.
I think the real question to be asked here is not whether Ed had the authority to make decisions about staffing the office but whether he made the right decisions.