Des Plaines releases 2005 settlement details

After years of refusals, Des Plaines on Wednesday finally released details of the 2005 settlement agreement the city made over a harassment lawsuit against former Alderman Tom Becker.

A former paralegal, Debra Lathom, had sued the city, claiming the former 6th Ward alderman sexually harassed her at city hall in December 2002.

When the lawsuit was settled in December 2005, Lathom was paid $25,857.40, and $16,642.60 was paid to her then-attorney, Thomas Fleischmann.

In her complaint, Lathom said Becker made several inappropriate comments in 2000 and 2001 and claimed he sat on her lap once and said, “Take a letter.” She also claims he Becker grabbed her and kissed her while dressed as Santa Claus.

Lathom also accused city officials of permitting a sexually-hostile work environment to develop, and a pattern of abuse against her by Becker.

Becker has always denied the allegations.

On Wednesday, the former alderman said he’s glad details of the agreement are now public.

“It should have been released all along,” said the 53-year-old, who lives in Des Plaines.

Becker never signed the settlement agreement. He said he wanted the city to go to trial, but officials then decided it was cheaper to settle. He said there are witnesses who back his version of one story.

“I did kiss her on the cheek dressed as Santa Claus,” Becker said adding, that it was a gesture he made jokingly when children nearby asked him where Mrs. Claus was.

“She walked in. I gave her a hug and kissed her on the cheek,” he said. Becker denied ever sitting on Lathom’s lap.

Becker, who ran unopposed in 2003 and left office in 2007 due to term limits, said he is upset with the city’s poor handling of Lathom’s complaints.

“I was not happy with it at all,” he said. “I just wanted my day in court and never got it.”

Lathom could not be reached Wednesday. Her present attorney, Paul Prezioso, had argued against the settlement’s release.

The city’s insurance pool handled the case and settlement, and the city did not pay any money directly to Lathom, an attorney representing the insurance pool said at the time.

State law at the time of the settlement allowed certain exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, including a choice to keep information decided by a third party or insurance pool from the public.

In June 2011, Des Plaines City Attorney Dave Wiltse denied a Freedom of Information Act request for release of the settlement, on the basis that details of the confidential agreement are exempt from release because disclosure “would violate a federal court order.”

“The terms of the settlement agreement state, in pertinent part, that “the Parties, their legal counsel, and all agents shall maintain in strict confidence, and shall not disclose to any other person or entity, unless required by law, any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement ...” Wiltse wrote in a letter to the Daily Herald.

Wiltse said the 2005 settlement agreement was reached with the understanding that both parties would be protected under confidentiality rules, which Lathom asserted in an April 27 letter to the city.

However, on July 27, 2011 the city filed a motion in federal court to have the confidentiality clause set aside and to dissolve the earlier court order.

A hearing on the motion was held Wednesday morning and Judge Morton Denlow agreed with the city that the settlement could be released, Wiltse said.

Wiltse said since changes made to state law — Public Act 96-542, which allows for the release of such agreements — became effective in 2010, it didn’t make sense anymore for the city to continue arguing against the settlement’s release with the attorney general’s office.

In a December 2005 letter, the Illinois Attorney General told Des Plaines the document is public.

At that point, however, the city denied it had a copy of the settlement at city hall.

“It was the federal court order that was the primary item that was having us restrict this information,” Wiltse said. “The city, one way or the other, didn’t have a position on it.”

Prezioso, Lathom’s attorney, was present at Wednesday’s hearing arguing against the settlement’s release.

He declined to give a statement Wednesday other than to say the judge’s order specified that “this court takes no position on the FOIA dispute between the parties.”

“The judge did not deny or grant the motion. The motion was withdrawn,” he said.