|

For the second time in a week, President Trump’s reelection campaign filed a defamation lawsuit against a major media outlet. The target of this lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., is The Washington Post. The allegedly defamatory statements at issue in the lawsuit come from two opinion pieces published by the Washington Post in June 2019.

One of the articles, entitled “Trump: I can win reelection with just my base,” was written by opinion writer for The Washington Post, Paul Waldman. In his piece, Waldman quipped that “who knows what sort of aid Russia and North Korea will give to the Trump campaign, now that he has invited them to offer their assistance?” The President’s reelection campaign alleges in the libel complaint that the statement is false and defamatory because no one associated with the campaign has made any statements inviting assistance from Russia or North Korea in the upcoming election.

The other article, entitled “Trump just invited another Russian attack. Mitch McConnell is making one more likely,” was also penned by an opinion writer at the Washington Post. This second piece “contained the defamatory claim that Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that the Campaign ‘tried to conspire with’ a ‘sweeping and systematic’ attack by Russia against the 2016 United States presidential election,” the complaint alleges. The complaint argues that statements concerning the conclusion of the Mueller report are false and that “[i]n fact, Special

Counsel Mueller’s Report . . . came to the opposite conclusion.” Trump’s campaign argues that the Mueller Report actually concluded that there was no conspiracy between then-candidate Trump’s campaign and Russia or any coordination with Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. Continue reading ›

|

Though it has been months since the initial cases of people being infected with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) surfaced, many employers in the United States still find themselves unprepared to respond to a local outbreak of the coronavirus. While Illinois and Chicago health officials seem sure that there is no indication of an Illinois outbreak any time soon, employers would be wise to begin preparing a response to an outbreak now rather than waiting until after one occurs. Any outbreak response plan must ensure compliance with the requirements of federal, state, and local employment and sick leave laws and ordinances, including special duties that may be triggered only during public health emergencies.

Can employers ask employees suspected of having or being exposed to the coronavirus to stay home?

Employers are under a general obligation to protect their employees from known hazards. In certain circumstances, this may include the coronavirus. However, employers must take care to establish policies that are nondiscriminatory and are not applied selectively or arbitrarily. Employers should not act on mere suspicion when asking an employee to stay home but should be able to articulate an objective basis for the suspicion (and document it) before asking an employee to stay home.

As the CDC and WHO have often reiterated, the best way to prevent the spread of the coronavirus is to quarantine infected individuals to prevent the spread of the virus and contact with the uninfected. In the workplace, this means employers should actively encourage sick employees to stay home as soon as they suspect being exposed to the virus, even before they begin displaying symptoms. Employers would be wise to also remind sick employees of any rights that they may have to paid time off when sick or caring for sick family members. If an employee is displaying symptoms of an acute respiratory illness such as fever, cough, or shortness of breath, employers can ask the employee not to return to work until he or she has been without a fever for no less than 24 hours.

Employers should also consider halting non-essential work-related travel, particularly to countries known to be coronavirus hotspots such as China, Italy, Japan, or South Korea. If an employee has recently returned from such a country, an employer should consider asking the employee to self-quarantine and work from home for up to 14 days, which is the virus’s estimated incubation and transmission period. Continue reading ›

|

A couple who defaulted on their mortgage filed suit against prospective purchasers who dropped out of a short sale agreement shortly before closing. Though the couple later sold the property at a different short sale, the appellate panel determined that the $35,000 difference in the prices was a loss attributable to the bank that owned the mortgage. As such, the panel affirmed the decision of the district court regarding the calculation of damages.

Hartwell P. Morse III and Deborah B. Morse owned property commonly known as 282 Stonegate in Clarendon Hills, Illinois. The property was encumbered by two mortgages, one held by Chase Bank and the other held by PNC Bank. The Morses defaulted on both mortgages. In August 2015, the couple entered into a contract for the sale of the property to Anthony Donati and Concetta Donati for $410,000.

The contract contained a “short sale addendum” which indicated that the plaintiffs were selling the property for less than they owed on their mortgages. The sale was contingent upon the plaintiffs’ obtaining PNC bank’s consent. In September 2015, the bank consented to the sale, provided that it received all of the proceeds and that the plaintiffs received $0 at closing. The bank also agreed not to pursue a deficiency judgment against the plaintiffs. Continue reading ›

|

A private investigator involved in a controversial investigation of a wrongful conviction, who was later alleged to have employed improper investigative techniques in a book and a documentary, sued several defendants for defamation and false light. The appellate panel reversed the trial court in part, finding that the investigator’s claims were not time-barred.

In 1982, Jerry HIllard and Marilyn Green were murdered in Washington Park in Chicago. Anthony Porter was convicted for the murders and was sentenced to the death penalty. Professor David Protess and other members of Northwestern University’s Innocence Project investigated the case and identified another suspect, Alstory Simon. At some point, members of the Innocence Project came to believe that Simon and not Porter had really committed the murders.

Paul Ciolino was employed as a private investigator and did work for the Innocence Project. Ciolino and another investigator traveled to Milwaukee to meet with Simon. Simon claims that Ciolino pretended to be a police officer from Illinois, and that Ciolino was armed with a handgun at the time of their meeting. Ciolino told Simon that the Innocence Project had sworn statements from Simon’s ex-wife, Inez Jackson, and from an eyewitness to the murders. Ciolino also showed Simon a video that the Innocence Project had made with a paid actor pretending to be the eyewitness. Simon also alleged that Ciolino persuaded him to confess to the murders by promising him that he would receive a sentence of only a few years in prison, and that he would receive money from book and movie deals because of the intense publicity of the case.

The Innocence Project eventually succeeded in freeing Porter from prison, using Simon’s videotaped confession as well as statements from Simon’s ex-wife and her nephew, Walter Jackson. The Cook County State’s Attorney then indicted Simon for the murders. Simon eventually pled guilty and was sentenced to 37 years in prison. Still, many people felt that Simon was not actually responsible for the murders and began investigations of their own to determine whether he was innocent of the crimes.

Inez Jackson and Walter Jackson eventually recanted their statements. The two explained they had implicated Simon in their statements based on promises from Protess. They alleged that Protess and his team had given them food, cash, alcohol, and other things of value to induce them to make statements. Northwestern University later conducted an internal investigation into the journalistic and investigative practices of the Innocence Project under Protess, and he was separated from the University as a result. The Cook County State’s Attorney then investigated Simon’s case and determined that, due to the misconduct on the parts of Protess and Ciolino, the conviction was so tainted that it could not stand. Simon was eventually released from prison after serving 15 years. Continue reading ›

|

Two small pharmacies sued a pharmacy benefits manager for antitrust violations, alleging that the benefits manager had conspired with Walgreens to drive the small pharmacies from the benefits manager’s network and therefore harm their business. The district court ruled in favor of the benefits manager. After appealing, the 7th Circuit found that the pharmacies had not alleged that either the benefits manager or Walgreens had monopoly power in the relevant markets as required under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and it, therefore, affirmed the decision of the district court.

Prime Therapeutics LLC is a pharmacy benefits manager. Sharif Pharmacy, Inc. and J&S Community Pharmacy, Inc. were both members of the Prime pharmacy network. Under Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurance plans, patients had significant financial incentives to buy their prescription drugs from pharmacies within the network. Prime eventually terminated both Sharif and J&S from the network after audits uncovered irregularities in invoicing for prescription drugs.

Both Sharif and J&S filed suits against Prime, alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Three customers who had to temporarily move their prescriptions to less convenient pharmacies also joined the suits. Both Sharif and J&S alleged that Prime’s decision to audit their pharmacies was pretextual, in an effort to eject competing pharmacies from the network after Prime entered into a joint venture with Walgreens in 2016. Sharif and J&S noted that Prime sent letters to both pharmacies’ customers saying that Sharif and J&S would no longer accept their insurance and recommending that customers have their prescriptions filled at a nearby Walgreens. Prime also retained funds from both pharmacies as a result of the audits. The district courts both ruled in favor of Prime, and Sharif and J&S appealed. The 7th Circuit consolidated then consolidated the appeals. Continue reading ›

|

Two property owners got into a dispute regarding a roof that encroached onto a neighboring property. The roof was constructed after the prior owners of both properties agreed and entered into a revokable license. The trial court found that the roof was an encroachment and granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The appellate panel disagreed, finding that the encroachment was unintentional, and the cost of replacing the roof was great while the benefit to the plaintiff of having the roof replaced was minimal. Therefore the panel determined that the trial court abused its discretion in finding for the plaintiff.

JCRE Holdings owns property in Peoria Heights. GLK Land Trust owns the neighboring property. Gary L. Kempf is the trustee of GLK Land Trust. The two properties share a common wall. In 1982, the prior owners of the properties entered into and recorded a “Party Wall Agreement.” The agreement designated the shared wall as a common support wall. In 1996, when two other sets of owners owned the properties, one received permission from the other to construct a sloped roof that hung over a portion of the wall onto the others’ property.

In 2014, JCRE sued GLK alleging that the overhanging roof constituted a trespass. The complaint sought injunctive and other relief. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied both motions. After motions to reconsider, the trial court granted JCRE’s motion, finding that the agreement between the prior property owners constituted a revocable license that JCRE revoked. GLK then appealed. Continue reading ›

|

After a group of students who were part-time library employees of the University of Chicago attempted to unionize, the University fought the organization attempt. The students won before the National Labor Relations Board, but the University refused to bargain with the students’ chosen representatives. The students and their union sued, and the 7th Circuit affirmed the issuance of an enforcement order by the NLRB.

In May 2017, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union Local No. 743 filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board. Local 743 sought to represent for collective bargaining purposes a unit of part-time student employees of the University of Chicago Libraries. The University responded with a “statement of position.” In it, the University contended that the proposed unit of student employees was not appropriate for collective bargaining. The University gave three reasons, one of which was that the students were temporary employees who did not manifest an interest in their employment terms and conditions that were sufficient to warrant collective-bargaining representation.

The University followed a procedure set out in 29 C.F.R. § 102.66(c) to submit an “offer of proof” – a description of the evidence the University would present to the Board to show that student employees were not entitled to collectively bargain. At a pre-election hearing on May 17, 2017, the Board’s hearing officer explained that after reviewing the proposed evidence and testimony that the University would put on to support its arguments, the Board would not take evidence because the evidence proposed and the testimony all dealt with established Board law.

The Board’s regional director echoed the hearing officer’s assessment, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the University’s contentions. The regional director ordered an election for the representation of the unit proposed by Local 743. The University asked the NLRB to stay the election and review the regional director’s decision. The Board denied that request, concluding that the facts asserted in the University’s offer of proof were insufficient to warrant the conclusion that the library clerks should be deemed ineligible as temporary or casual employees. Continue reading ›

|

After several former employees stole and destroyed internal data from their employer in order to found a competing business, and were sued, the trial court’s appointing of a third party to monitor the new company’s compliance with discovery and restraining orders was not error.

Shamrock Corporation has sold antifreeze, motor oil, and heat transfer fluids since 1974. Eventually, John Dreamer, Sr. became the sole shareholder of Shamrock. When John died, his wife, Annie Dreamer, became the sole shareholder. The entirety of Shamrock’s stock is held in a trust with Annie as the beneficiary.

Shamrock had five employees: John Dreamer, Jr., Les Kreifels, Steven Wroblewski, David Wells, and Chris England. The Dreamer family decided to sell Shamrock and offered Wroblewski and Wells the opportunity to make the first offer. The two submitted an offer that was financially acceptable but included collateral terms that the Dreamer family refused to accept. In August 2017 Shamrock made a counter-offer that revised some of the collateral terms.

In September 2017, Wroblewski and Wells abruptly resigned. England resigned four days later. Just prior to their resignations, the three had Beaver Shredding, Inc. destroy several boxes of documents at Shamrock’s headquarters. The three also deleted large amounts of data from Shamrock’s internal computer system. Prior to the deletion, Wroblewski had uploaded data from the computers to the digital storage site Dropbox. Continue reading ›

|

Two consumers initiated a class action suit against Fannie May alleging that they were deceived by the size of the candy boxes that they purchased. The consumers argued that the boxes contained an acceptable level of empty space, amounting to over a third of the volume of the boxes. The appellate panel found that though the company’s boxes correctly indicated the included weight and portion size of the candy, the consumers had sufficiently pled the initial elements of a claim for deceptive practice. However, the panel found that the consumers could not show that they suffered actual damages, because they could not demonstrate that the candy was worth less than the amount they paid, or that they could have purchased the same candy for cheaper elsewhere. The panel then affirmed the district court’s decision in favor of Fannie May.

Clarisha Benson and Lorenzo Smith each purchased an opaque, seven-ounce box of Fannie May’s chocolate for $9.99 plus tax. Benson purchased Fannie May’s Mint Meltaways, and Smith purchased Fannie May’s Pixies. Although the boxes accurately disclosed the weight of the chocolate within, and the number of pieces in each box, the boxes were emptier than either had expected. The box of Mint Meltaways contained approximately 33% empty space, and the box of Pixies contained approximately 38% empty space. Continue reading ›

|

When a film production equipment rental company in Chicago began losing business to a new competitor, it sought to blame a state economic development agency. The company sued the state agency, alleging that the agency conspired to steer state incentives to the new business in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Sherman Antitrust Act. The appellate panel disagreed, finding that the actions of the state agency were not actionable, as the competitor had consistently reached out to the state agency for help, applied for grants and development programs that the plaintiff did not, and offered superior equipment and facilities for film production.

Since 1979, Chicago Studio has operated a film and television production studio in Chicago, Illinois. Chicago Studio has four studio stages measuring 62,000 square feet. Chicago Studio requires production companies to lease its production equipment for a 0.4% charge. The studio does not have installed air conditioning, but Chicago Studio provides industry-standard portable air conditioning units for an additional charge. Additionally, Chicago Studio does not have screen docks, which allow large trailers to unload equipment inside the studio.

Cinespace began operating a studio in Chicago around 2010. By the end of 2012, Cinespace had 600,000 square feet of floor space and 10 stages. The studio expanded to 1.5 million square feet of floor space and 30 stages by Januar 2015. Cinespace’s studio can accommodate two-story sets and includes air conditioning, inside breezeways and scene docks, concrete floors, sound-proof walls, and new offices. Cinespace permits production companies to use any equipment rentals they choose, including an unaffiliated equipment rental company called Cinelease that charges 0.2%.

Chicago Studio sought to put the blame for its failure to make a profit following Cinespace’s opening on the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Illinois Film Office, and Betsy Steinberg, a state employee responsible for promoting the Illinois film industry. Chicago Studio alleged that the defendants unlawfully steered state incentives and business to Cinespace in violation of the Sherman Act and equal protection and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the Sherman Act and due process claims. It later granted summary judgment on the equal protection claim to the defendants. Chicago Studio then appealed. Continue reading ›

Contact Information
Chicago Office
19 S LaSalle St #702
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 630-333-0333
Mailing Address
17W220 22nd St #410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Phone: 630-333-0333 Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.
Highland Park Office
189 Whistler Rd
Highland Park, IL 60035
Phone: 630-710-4990
We accept the following credit cards
Credit Cards Accepted
We accept payment via Venmo at: @L-A-LAW

Please direct all mail correspondence to our Oakbrook Terrace address.

Phone: 603-333-0333
Visit our site: chicagobusinesslawfirm.com

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Lubin Austermuehle, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design