Judge says Kane, sheriff guilty in retaliation case

A judge has ruled Kane County and the Kane County Sheriff’s Department are guilty of illegal retaliation against a union court security officer after the officer began filing grievances regarding work conditions.

The lawsuit involves a series of events in late 2008 and early 2009. It was during that time Michael Stuckert filed several grievances. Stuckert was the union president for the court security officers. He’d been denied sick pay for a doctor’s appointment because the doctor’s note didn’t have Stuckert’s name on it. Stuckert didn’t think that was fair. He also filed a grievance because court security officers were working through their lunch hours because of insufficient staffing levels. And he also helped a fellow union employee file a grievance for being denied overtime.

Shortly after Stuckert filed the grievances he was transferred to a duty that took him out of contact with most of the other union members. He was then investigated for having secondary employment. Stuckert was a DeKalb County Board member at the time, but he did not consider having an elected position a second job. Stuckert was suspended for two days for not disclosing the second job and then refusing to fill out a request for secondary employment when he was told to do so. Stuckert testified he made the sheriff’s office aware of his elected position during his hiring process, and it was not an issue at the time.

The ruling also says there was a meeting with Stuckert and sheriff’s department supervisors where Stuckert recalls being told that if he didn’t stop filing grievances, “things were going to get worse” for him. Supervisors who testified said they couldn’t recall if they made that statement to Stuckert or not.

However, supervisors, including Sheriff Pat Perez, did testify that they were aware of at least one other employee with outside employment who never filled out a request or was ordered to do so. There was also no evidence that any other court security employee had been investigated or disciplined for having a second job.

Based on the facts and testimony, Administrative Law Judge Elaine L. Tarver ruled that Stuckert’s testimony was “more credible.”

“Stuckert’s testimony was less evasive, more forthcoming,” Tarver wrote in her opinion. She said the supervisors “gave shifting explanation and inconsistent reasons for investigating Stuckert’s secondary employment. It is not mere happenstance that the (supervisors) investigated Stuckert after he became union president and began filing grievances.”

The impact to taxpayers beyond the legal costs of the three-year lawsuit are back pay with 7 percent interest per year to Stuckert for the two days he was suspended without pay. The county and sheriff’s department, which have 30 days to file exceptions to the ruling, must also post notices for 60 days acknowledging the judgment in Stuckert’s favor and promising no further retaliation against union employees.