3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 E-FILED Page 1 of 18 Friday, 03 August, 2018 01:02:27 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION MELISSA SCHAIVE, MASON McDANIEL, CINDY HOULIHAN, TIM HENDERSON, MARIANNE HANKINS, KRISTEN CHIARO, PATTY AMBROSE, and ISAURO RIVAS Plaintiffs, v. No.: BRUCE RAUNER, RANDALL BLACKENHORN and MATT MAGALIS Defendants JURY TRIAL REQUESTED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, by Donald M. Craven, and by Carl R. Draper, for their Complaint against Defendants, state as follows: PARTIES: 1. Plaintiffs (excepting Isauro Rivas) are residents of the area of the Central District of Illinois and were employees of the Illinois Department of Transportation (sometimes referred to as “IDOT”). 2. Defendant Bruce Rauner is the Governor of the State of Illinois. He is sued in his official capacity for the matters concerning injunctive and declaratory relief and is sued in his individual capacity for matters concerning the compensatory damages in this cause. 3. In November 2014, Bruce Rauner was elected as Governor of Illinois and was sworn into office in January 2015. He is affiliated with the Republican party. Page 1 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 Page 2 of 18 Prior to his election, the preceding governor was affiliated with the Democratic party. 4. Defendant Rauner made comments that expressed his political animus to those individuals who supported Democrats or public-sector unions. Some of those comments were directed at some plaintiffs. 5. Defendant, Randall Blackenhorn is the Secretary of Transportation of the State of Illinois. He is sued in his official capacity for the matters concerning injunctive and declaratory relief and is sued in his individual capacity for matters concerning the compensatory damages in this cause. 6. Defendant Matt Magalis is the Chief of Staff for IDOT. He is sued in his official capacity for the matters concerning injunctive and declaratory relief and is sued in his individual capacity for matters concerning the compensatory damages in this cause. JURISDICTION 7. This court has original jurisdiction of this civil action in that the claims of this Complaint arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States 28 U.S.C.§ 1331 and §1343. 8. The Constitution of the United States provides in relevant part as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Constitution of the United States, Amendment I. Page 2 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 Page 3 of 18 and No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV, Section 1 9. At all times relevant to the matters stated in this Complaint, there was in force and effect a federal law known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871 which provides in relevant part as follows: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 VENUE 10. Venue is proper in this court in that the Central District of Illinois is the judicial district where the Defendants reside and in which all of the conduct complained of arose. 28 UCS § 1391(b). COMMON FACTS: 11. Prior to April 21, 2017, Plaintiffs were all employees of IDOT. Most were working for the Division of Traffic Safety in Springfield; details on the others is laid out below. Page 3 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 12. Page 4 of 18 On or about April 21, 2016, Plaintiffs, were reassigned from their positions to the main headquarters of IDOT on Dirksen Parkway, but they were never given any amendment to their job descriptions after they were reassigned. A copy of the notice of this restructuring is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 13. At the time of the reassignments, Defendant Blackenhorn issued a statement to all IDOT employees, explaining the reasons behind these reassignments, and in that statement, he specifically assured all IDOT employees that no one would lose their positions at IDOT because of these reassignments. 14. After their reassignments, the Plaintiffs continued to perform their job responsibilities including any tasks assigned by their supervisors. 15. After their reassignment, each Plaintiff received an annual work evaluation by the appropriate supervisory personnel at IDOT rating each Plaintiff, at a minimum, an acceptable rating. 16. On July 12, 2017, each Plaintiff received a letter, substantially in form of Exhibit B, notifying them of their layoff from IDOT because of a purported lack of work (Plaintiff Hankins was terminated on that date but never received a copy of the notice). Page 4 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 Page 5 of 18 INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS COUNT I Melissa Schaive Plaintiff Schaive incorporates paragraphs 1 – 16 above in this count. 17. Plaintiff, Melissa Schaive was first hired at IDOT in the Division of Traffic Safety as the Assistant to the Deputy Director. 18. In her employment, Schaive was responsible for many procurement duties in particular for safety programs as well as printing resources for staff. 19. On or April 21, 2017, plaintiff Schaive was given a notice of a restructuring of employment positions at IDOT 20. After being advised that positions were being moved, plaintiff Schaive was assigned to work in the Bureau of Business Services. In that position, she continued doing procurement. 21. At all times after the reassignment in April, 2017, plaintiff Schaive has performed essentially the same or similar job functions as she did when she was assigned to the Division of Traffic Safety. 22. At no time after her employment has plaintiff Schaive received any different or revised job description. 23. At no time since her initial hire has plaintiff Schaive been advised that she was performing duties outside the scope of the job description under which she was originally hired. 24. At all times from January 1, 2015 to present, plaintiff Schaive has received performance evaluations that rated her performance as acceptable or better. Page 5 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 25. Page 6 of 18 At no time from the date of transfer in April, 2017, has plaintiff Schaive had a lack of work or failed to have sufficient duties to perform for IDOT COUNT II Isauro Rivas Plaintiff Rivas incorporates paragraphs 1 – 16 above in this count. 26. Plaintiff, Isauro Rivas was first hired at IDOT in the Division of Intermodal Transportation as a Project Manager. 27. In his employment, Rivas was responsible programs involving rural and downstate transportation programs, including both Capitol Group and Operating group programs. These programs involved public transportation agencies applying to IDOT for vehicles and operating assistance for rural transportation programs. 28. Rivas was responsible for many grantees across the state, and was responsible for those grants from beginning to end, from processing the original grant applications, to site and desk reviews, to request to purchase additional equipment, to compiling the required annual report to the federal oversight agencies. 29. At the time Rivas was laid off from IDOT, he was continuing to perform this work. In addition to Rivas, there were additional project managers, assigned to work with other groups of grantees. Rivas had seniority over all other project managers. Page 6 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 30. Page 7 of 18 On information and belief, additional project managers were hired after Rivas was laid off. 31. Plaintiff Rivas performed essentially the same or similar job functions for his entire tenure at IDOT. 32. At no time after his employment has plaintiff Rivas received any different or revised job description. 33. At no time since his initial hire has plaintiff Rivas been advised that he was performing duties outside the scope of the job description under which he was originally hired. 34. At all times from January 1, 2015 to present, plaintiff Rivas has received performance evaluations that rated his performance as acceptable or better. 35. At no time since his initial employment at IDOT has plaintiff Rivas had a lack of work or failed to have sufficient duties to perform for IDOT. COUNT III Mason McDaniel Plaintiff McDaniel incorporates paragraphs 1 – 16 above in this count. 36. Plaintiff, Mason McDaniel was first hired at IDOT in the Division of Traffic Safety as an Assistant to the Deputy Director. 37. In his employment, McDaniel was responsible for many legislative analyses along with record retention. 38. On or April 21, 2017, plaintiff McDaniel was given a notice of a restructuring of employment positions at IDOT Page 7 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 39. Page 8 of 18 After being advised that positions were being moved, plaintiff McDaniel was assigned to work in the Bureau of Safety Programs and Engineering. In that position, he continued doing legislative analysis. 40. At all times after the reassignment in April, 2017, plaintiff McDaniel has performed essentially the same or similar job functions as he did when he was assigned to the Division of Traffic Safety. 41. At no time after his employment has plaintiff McDaniel received any different or revised job description. 42. At no time since his initial hire has plaintiff McDaniel been advised that he was performing duties outside the scope of the job description under which he was originally hired. 43. At all times from January 1, 2015 to present, plaintiff McDaniel has received performance evaluations that rated his performance as acceptable or better. 44. At no time from the date of transfer in April, 2017, has plaintiff McDaniel had a lack of work or failed to have sufficient duties to perform for IDOT. COUNT IV Cindy Houlihan Plaintiff Houlihan incorporates paragraphs 1 – 16 above in this count. 45. Plaintiff, Cindy Houlihan was first hired at IDOT in the Division of Traffic Safety as an Assistant to the Deputy Director. 46. In her employment, Houlihan was responsible for many drivers’ safety programs, such as Drive for Tomorrow, teen safe driving programs, afterprom programs and similar educational programming. Page 8 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 47. Page 9 of 18 In this capacity, Houlihan worked with private trucking companies, Illinois State Police and other agencies to stage these programs around the state. 48. On or April 21, 2017, plaintiff Houlihan was given a notice of a restructuring of employment positions at IDOT 49. At the time that restructuring was announced, Houlihan, in a meeting with a large group of IDOT employees, asked Defendant Magalis if anyone would lose their positions as a result of restructuring, and Magalis assured them nobody would lose their jobs. 50. After being advised that positions were being moved, plaintiff Houlihan was assigned to work in Hanley building, and she continued to do essentially the same work for IDOT and picked up the Adopt-a-Highway program and revamped that program to allow online recordkeeping and applications for the public. 51. At all times after the reassignment in April, 2017, plaintiff Houlihan has performed essentially the same or similar job functions as she did when she was assigned to the Division of Traffic Safety. 52. After she was transferred out of Traffic Safety, she reported, along with 3 or 4 of these plaintiffs, to Guy Tridgell and Kelsey Gurski. They met regularly with both Tridgell and Gurski and continued to be very busy with the projects assigned to them. 53. At no time after her employment has plaintiff Houlihan received any different or revised job description. Page 9 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 54. Page 10 of 18 At no time since her initial hire has plaintiff Houlihan been advised that she was performing duties outside the scope of the job description under which she was originally hired. She continued with the public education programs, raising large grants from Allstate and State Farm for safety programs. 55. At all times from January 1, 2015 to present, plaintiff Houlihan has received performance evaluations that rated her performance as acceptable or better. 56. At no time from the date of transfer in April, 2017, has plaintiff Houlihan had a lack of work or failed to have sufficient duties to perform for IDOT COUNT V Tim Henderson Plaintiff Henderson incorporates paragraphs 1 – 16 above in this count. 57. Plaintiff, Tim Henderson was first hired at IDOT in the Division of Traffic Safety as an Assistant to the Director. 58. In his employment, Henderson was responsible for many office communications duties in particular for safety programs. He later became a grant manager for many federally funded safety grants. 59. On or April 21, 2017, plaintiff Henderson was given a notice of a restructuring of employment positions at IDOT 60. After being advised that positions were being moved, plaintiff Henderson was assigned to work in the Bureau of Communications. In that position, he continued doing communications responsibilities. Page 10 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 61. Page 11 of 18 At all times after the reassignment in April, 2017, plaintiff Henderson has performed essentially the same or similar job functions as he did when he was assigned to the Division of Traffic Safety. 62. At no time after his employment has plaintiff Henderson received any different or revised job description. 63. At no time since his initial hire has plaintiff Henderson been advised that he was performing duties outside the scope of the job description under which he was originally hired. 64. At all times from January 1, 2015 to present, plaintiff Henderson has received performance evaluations that rated his performance as acceptable or better. 65. At no time from the date of transfer in April, 2017, has plaintiff Henderson had a lack of work or failed to have sufficient duties to perform for IDOT COUNT VI Marianne Hankins Plaintiff Hankins incorporates paragraphs 1 – 16 above in this count. 66. Plaintiff, Marianne Hankins was first hired at IDOT, as a temporary employee in the Springfield office. 67. In her employment, Hankins was responsible for many traffic safety programs, including the Teen Safe Driving program. 68. Also, she managed the Driving Skills for Life program sponsored by Ford, which Ford brought back to Illinois year after year. Page 11 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 69. Page 12 of 18 In June of 2015, Plaintiff Hankins went on disability, as a result of complications from hip surgery, and she remained on disability through the date of her termination. 70. Plaintiff Hankins has performed essentially the same or similar job functions during the course of her IDOT employment. 71. At no time after her permanent employment has plaintiff Hankins received any different or revised job description. 72. At no time since her initial hire has plaintiff Hankins been advised that she was performing duties outside the scope of the job description under which she was originally hired. 73. At all times during her IDOT employment, plaintiff Hankins has received performance evaluations that rated her performance as acceptable or better. 74. At no time has plaintiff Hankins had a lack of work or failed to have sufficient duties to perform for IDOT. COUNT VII Kristen Chiaro Plaintiff Chiaro incorporates paragraphs 1 – 16 above in this count. 75. Plaintiff, Kristen Chiaro was first hired at IDOT in the Division of Traffic Safety as an Assistant to the Director. 76. In her employment, Chiaro was responsible for many communication duties for the Division. She was involved in newsletter and magazine production, scheduling and preparing for events and press conferences, and documenting the performance of the Division. Page 12 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 77. Page 13 of 18 When John Webber became Director of Traffic Safety, Chiaro was reassigned to the Communications office in the Hanley Building, under the supervision of Paris Ervin. In addition to communications work on traffic safety programs, Chiaro also was involved with communication issues for a broader set of IDOT programs, 78. At some point, Chiaro was transferred back over to the Traffic Safety office. Over the course of her employment, her permanent position was as Assistant to the Director of Traffic Safety. She was temporarily assigned to motorcycle grant programs for a short period of time, and at the end of that temporary assignment returned to her Traffic Safety position. 79. In April of 2017, plaintiff Chiaro, with all other Traffic Safety workers, was advised of a reassignment, but was assured by Defendant Blankenhorn’s representation that no IDOT employee would lose their jobs. 80. At all times after the reassignment in April, 2017, plaintiff Chiaro has performed essentially the same or similar job functions as she did when she was assigned to the Division of Traffic Safety. 81. At no time after her employment has plaintiff Chiaro received any different or revised job description. 82. At no time since her initial hire has plaintiff Chiaro been advised that she was performing duties outside the scope of the job description under which she was originally hired. Page 13 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 83. Page 14 of 18 At all times from January 1, 2015 to present, plaintiff Chiaro has received performance evaluations that rated her performance as acceptable or better. 84. At no time from the date of transfer in April, 2017, has plaintiff Chiaro had a lack of work or failed to have sufficient duties to perform for IDOT COUNT VIII Patty Ambrose Plaintiff Ambrose incorporates paragraphs 1 – 16 above in this count. 85. Plaintiff, Patty Ambrose was first hired at IDOT in the Division of Traffic Safety as a media buyer. 86. In her employment, Ambrose was responsible negotiation and purchase of advertising or media placement for traffic safety programs. 87. On or April 21, 2017, plaintiff Ambrose was given a notice of a restructuring of employment positions at IDOT 88. After being advised that positions were being moved, plaintiff Ambrose was assigned to work in the Division of Communications. In that position, she continued doing media and advertising duties including media purchase duties. 89. At all times after the reassignment in April, 2017, plaintiff Ambrose has performed essentially the same or similar job functions as she did when she was assigned to the Division of Traffic Safety. 90. At no time after her employment has plaintiff Ambrose received any different or revised job description. Page 14 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 91. Page 15 of 18 At no time since her initial hire has plaintiff Ambrose been advised that she was performing duties outside the scope of the job description under which she was originally hired. 92. At all times from January 1, 2015 to present, plaintiff Ambrose has received performance evaluations that rated his performance as acceptable or better. 93. At no time from the date of transfer in April, 2017, has plaintiff Ambrose had a lack of work or failed to have sufficient duties to perform for IDOT. COMMON CLAIMS 94. Defendant Magalis made clear in further communications with personnel from Teamsters Local 916 that the layoffs were not because of a general lack of work for IDOT employees but was because of a ‘lack of work in the job descriptions’ of each of these Plaintiffs. 95. The assertion that each Plaintiff was laid off because of a lack of work is a pretense. 96. Each Plaintiff was fully engaged in the work and mission of IDOT, each Plaintiff had a series of projects in line to complete, and each was constantly being given new assignments to complete. 97. Job descriptions are prepared by the IDOT Bureau of Personnel and are not prepared by the individual employees of IDOT. 98. It was the policy of IDOT that at the time of the annual evaluations of each IDOT employee, the supervisory personnel are mandated to review the job Page 15 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 Page 16 of 18 description of each employee, and to verify that the assigned work duties of each employee are within the scope of that job description. 99. The supervisory personnel then execute a Job Description verification form. (See emails of October 23, 2014, and August 28, 2009, attached as Exhibit C) 100. Despite the long-standing policy of IDOT to review and update job descriptions of employees, at no time after their reassignments did supervisory personnel, or personnel in the Bureau of Personnel verify the accuracy of Plaintiffs’ job descriptions or update the job descriptions to more accurately reflect the work being assigned to each Plaintiff. 101. Defendants then used the job descriptions, which were intentionally allowed to become outdated as the pretense to terminate the employment of these Plaintiffs. 102. The real reason for the termination of these Plaintiffs was that they were employed by the prior administration (under then Governor Patrick Quinn who was a member of the Democratic Party) or that they refused to become affiliated with the Rauner Administration. (see Exhibit D, relevant excerpt of the Rauner administration response to the OEIG Report, dated May 2018). 103. As a consequence of one or more of the foregoing acts of the defendants, plaintiffs lost their employment, with the related loss of income, insurance, pension and other benefits of employment. Page 16 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 104. Page 17 of 18 The actions of the defendants as alleged above violates the rights of plaintiffs in the free exercise of political speech and free association guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 105. The conduct of the defendants as alleged above violates rights of the plaintiffs that were protected under clearly established law at the time of their participation in the scheme. 106. The conduct of the defendants was willful and deliberate in the attempt to deprive plaintiffs of their employment in retaliation for not being supporters of Governor Bruce Rauner and the Republican Party. 107. This court should enter an injunction prohibiting the defendant from wrongfully removing plaintiffs from their employment in violation of the Constitutional protections of free speech and free association. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that judgment be entered for them for compensation for the deprivation of their civil rights in this cause for their past losses of employment including lost salaries and benefits. In addition, plaintiffs pray that this court will grant a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from removing Plaintiff s from their employment and ordering them reinstated in employment with full restoration of seniority, credit for continuous service, and restoration of all pension, insurance or other benefits of employment together with and injunction prohibiting defendants from taking any other action in retaliation for the Plaintiffs’ protection of their civil rights in this cause. Further, pursuant to Page 17 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1 Page 18 of 18 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the court award to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this cause, and for such other relief as this court deems just. PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY A JURY ON ALL CLAIMS HEREIN MELISSA SCHAIVE et al., Plaintiffs Carl R. Draper Number 03128847 FELDMANWASSER 1307 S. Seventh Street Springfield, IL 62703 Telephone: (217) 544-3403 Fax: (217) 544-1593 E-Mail: cdraper@feldman-wasser.com By: /s Donald M. Craven Donald M. Craven (#6180492) Bar Lead Attorney for Plaintiffs DONALD M. CRAVEN, P.C. 1005 North Seventh Street Springfield, IL 62702 Telephone: (217) 544-1777 Fax: (217) 544-0713 E-Mail: don@cravenlawoffice.com Page 18 of 18 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-1 Page 1 of 1 E-FILED Friday, 03 August, 2018 01:02:27 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD April 21, 2016 . Mr. Tony Barr · President 3361 Teamster Way Springfield, Illinois 62707 RE: I.DOT Restructuring Dear Mr. Barr: This letter serves .~s _official.notification that the Illinois O~partment of Transportation Restructuring Initially commenced on February 16; 2016. The initial changes affected top level, non-union staff. Attached are a summary, before/after organizational charts, and specific employees impacted. The main impact of this. restructuring will be that some T~amster employees . will have a change in location and reporting status through upper level management. They w_ill remain in their current section l:>LJt each section will be moved to more appropriate bureaus within the Offices of Planning and Programming, Program Development, Highways Project Implementation, lntermodal Project Implementation, Communications, Legislative Affairs, Finance and Administration, B.usiness and Workforce Diversity, Chief Counsel, or Internal Audit. Due to budgetary/payroll coding issues, code changes are not planned to take. place until July 1, 2016. Space needs and availability are being examined to begin relocating Springfield Traffic Safety employees to the. Hanley Building. These changes are most likely to commence in May but will be done s~ctions at a time. The goal Is to vacate the Sangamon Street location prior to July 1, 2016. We will provide specific notice to employ.ees with an estimated time line of such move and copies provided to you. We will keep in contact with you as we move through this process. You may contact Labor Relations at 217-782-4506 with any questions. Please feel free to contact me as well. Qi;~ Jeff Heck Director Enclosures cc: Dianna Taylor Jane Ryan Leo Carroll JP f'yans EXHIBIT A 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-2 Page 1 of 8 E-FILED Friday, 03 August, 2018 01:02:27 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD Office of the Secretary 2300 South Dirksen Parkway/ Springfield, fllinois / 62764 Telephone 2·17/782-5597 July 12, 2017 Melissa Schaive 408 East Lincoln Riverton, IL, 62561 Dear Melissa, It is with regret that I must inform you that, in accordance with Article XII, Section 11 of the General Teamsters/Professional & Technical Employees Collective Bargaining Agreement (ProTech 916), this correspondence will serve as final notiflcation of the Department's layoff due to lack of work. Unfortunately, your position has been identified for layoff. The effective date of the layoff is at the close of business on August 15, 2017. Sincerely, Matt Magalis Chief of Staff EXHIBIT B 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-2 Page 2 of 8 • on Office of the Secrelary 2300 South Dirksen Parkway/ Springfield, illinois / 62764 Telephone 217/782-5597 July 12, 2017 Isaura Rivas PO Box 334 Frankfort, IL 60423 Dear Isaura, It is with regret that I must inform you that, in accordance with Article XII, Section 1, of the General Teamsters/Professional & Technical Employees Collective Bargaining Agreement {ProTech 916}, this correspondence will serve as final notification of the Department's layoff due to lack of work. Unfortunately, your position has been identified for layoff. The effective date of the layoff is at the close of business on August 15, 2017. To maintain your eligibility for recall after the layoff, it is your responsibility to keep the Illinois Department of Transportation's Central Bureau of Personnel Management up to date with your official mailing address. Should you need to update your contact information, please send it to the Bureau of Personnel Management at 2300 South Dirksen Parkway, Room 113, Springfield, IL 62764. Sincerely, fl/latt Magalis Chief of Staff 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-2 Page 3 of 8 Office of the Secretary 2300 South Dirksen Parkway/ Springfield, Illinois/ 62764 Telephone 217/782-5597 July 12, 2017 Mason McDaniel 1016 West Washington Street Springfield, IL, 62702 Dear Mason, It is with regret that I must inform you that, in accordance with Article XII, Section 1, of the General Teamsters/Professional & Technical Employees Collective Bargaining Agreement (ProTech 916), this correspondence will serve as final notification of the Department's layoff due to lack of work. Unfortunately, your position has been identified for layoff. The effective date of the layoff is at the close of business on August 2017. Sincerely, Matt Magalis Chief of Staff 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-2 Page 4 of 8 Office of !he Secretary 2300 South Dirksen Parkway/ Springfield, Illinois/ 62764 Telephone 217/782-5597 July 12, 2017 Cindy Houlihan 2409 Country Club Drive · Springfield, IL, 62704 Dear Cindy, It is with regret that I must inform you that, in accordance with Article XII, Section 1, of the General Teamsters/Professional & Technical Employees Collective Bargaining Agreement (ProTech 916L this correspondence will serve as final notification of the Department's layoff due to lack of work. Unfortunately, your position has been identified for layoff. The effective date of the layoff is at the close of business on August 2017. Sincerely, Matt Magalis Chief of Staff 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-2 Page 5 of 8 Office of the Secretary 2300 South Dirksen Parkway/ Springfield, Illinois/ 62764 Telephone 217/782-5597 July 12, 2017 Timothy Henderson 63 Providence Lane Springfield, IL, 62711 Dear Timothy, It is with regret that I must inform you that, in accordance with Article XII, Section 1, of the General Teamsters/Professional & Technical Employees Collective Bargaining Agreement (ProTech 916), this correspondence will serve as final notification of the Department's layoff due to lack of work. Unfortunately, your position has been identified for layoff. The effective date of the layoff is at the close of business on August 15, 2017. Sincerely, Matt Magalis Chief of Staff 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-2 Page 6 of 8 t Office o; the Secretary 2300 South Dirksen Parkway! Springfield, Illinois/ 62764 Telephone 2171782-5 597 July 12, 2017 Marianne Hankins 828 North Oxford Road Springfield, IL, 62702 Dear Marianne, It is with regret that I must inform you that, in accordance with Article XII, Section 1, of the General Teamsters/Professional & Technical Employees Collective Bargaining Agreement (Pro· Tech 916), this correspondence will serve as final notification of the Department's layoff due to lack of work. Unfortunately, your position has been identified for layoff. The effective date of the layoff is at the close of business on August 2017. Sincerely, Matt Maga!is Chief of Staff 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-2 Page 7 of 8 Office of the Secretary 2300 South Dirksen Parkway/ Springfield, Illinois / 62764 Telephone 217/782-5597 July 12, 2017 Kristen Chiaro 103 Cottonwood Drive Chatham, IL, 62629 Dear Kristen, It is with regret that I must inform you that, in accordance with Article XII, Section 1, of the General Teamsters/Professional & Technical Employees Collective Bargaining Agreement (ProTech 916), this correspondence will serve as final notification of the Department's layoff due to lack of work. Unfortunately, your position has been identified for layoff. The effective date of the layoff is at the close of business on August 15, 2017. Sincerely, Matt Magalis Chief of Staff 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-2 Page 8 of 8 Office of the Secretary 2300 South Dirksen Parkway/ Springfield Illinois i 62764 Telephone 2i 7/782-5597 July 12, 2017 Patty Ambrose 269 North East Street Carlinville, IL, 62626 Dear Patty, It is with regret that I must inform you that, in accordance with Article XII, Section 1, of the General Teamsters/Professional & Technical Employees Collective Bargaining Agreement (ProTech 916), this correspondence will serve as final notification of the Department's layoff due to lack of work. Unfortunately, your position has been identified for layoff. The effective date of the layoff is at the close of business on August 15, 2017. Sincerely, ( Matt Magalis Chief of Staff 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-3 Page 1 of 4 E-FILED Friday, 03 August, 2018 01:02:27 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD Smith Karin H From: Small, Tony Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 11 :28 Driskell, Roger L; Forti, Michael A.; Heck, Jeff L; Ingersoll, Charles; Kirk, Stephen; Loker, Tonya D; McNeil, Frank W.; Osman, Omer M; Shacter, Joseph E.; Shea, Susan R; Vanausdoll, Leigh Ann; Tridgell, Guy To: Cc: Subject: Martinez, Jaime E.; Borggren, Erica J FW: RE: Correction/Clarification to Job Description Review Process Directors, In order to provide needed clarification & correction to the email I sent yesterday regarding the job description review process, please let this email supersede the email I sent out yesterday at 3:50 pm. On September 4, 2014, we notified you via email that job descriptions (JD's) must be current and accurate prior to including in an IPR package to fill a position. We also indicated in this email that JD's should be reviewed during the annual performance reviews. To clarify: the following guidelines apply for when a JD must be submitted to BPM. These guidelines apply whether you are posting a position, preparing for anticipated future posting of a position, conducting a performance review, or conducting other classification review. 111 111 • • If JD is current (within 2 years) and accurate (no changes are required): no JD is required by BPM. If JD is current (within 2 years) but not accurate (i.e. it reflects inaccurate/outdated duties): an updated job description should be submitted to the 8PM. lf a JD is only moderately outdated {more than 2 years old but less than S years old) but is still accurate: a Verification of Job Description Duties (PM1863) should be submitted to the 8PM; no job description ls required. If JD is very outdated (effective date is more than S years ago), an updated description should be submitted to the 6PM. Please be advised that JD's this old, regardless of accuracy, must also be reviewed by CMS once you submit them to BPM -- so more lead-time is better. If there is no longer a need for the position, a request should be submitted for abolishment. The personnel liaisons are aware of these guidelines and are available to assist in processing the required documentation. fn addition, please feel free to direct any questions to the Bureau of Personnel Management, Sheryl Kulavic or Karin Smith at 217.782.2512. Tony Small, Director Offite ol finance & Admlnistralion lllino!s Department of Transportation 2300 S. Oirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62764 Office 217 782-1816 Tony.Small@illinois,gov EXHIBIT I 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-3 :=:rom: Sent: "io: Cc: Subject: Page 2 of 4 Smith, Karin H rnday, August 28 2009 14:32 Bigler, Michael J. Brunette, Richard A; Campos, Marsha N; Devereux, James F; Johnson, 9rian K; Klemz Charles L Layer Charles L Loker, Tonya D; Masterson, Rodney L: McDaniel, James C; Stone, Dons J; Stout, Vickie E: Straube, Linda M; vVhile, Grant T: Horrlghs, Gina K; ,Joines, Lugene; Jones, Carrie L; Null, Becky S; Ol-leal, Nancy J; Ritter, Angie D; Shevlin, Shelly S. Stout. Vickie E. Straube. Linda M; White, Grant T; Schnepp, Brenda M; Petersen, Linda L; Cortese, Carmen A; Burgess, Daniel T; Schott, V1:::ki L.; Hamrick, Karon S Kulavic, Sheryl L: Carmitchel, Jan L; Burton, Kathy L: Koehler, Becky J; Eades, Jill K: Hughes, Matthew R Processing of Job Description Clarifications The Department currently requires clarification of both Code and Technical job descriptions so that duties are current within two years of postings and within five years generally. Due to recent updates to guidelines at CMS, submittal of clarifications wi11 change as follow. In an attempt to maintain consistency, the same practices will also be utilized for Technical jobs. This procedure will be effective immediately. • If there are no changes to duties and the job description is less than five years old, the attached document should be completed. 1t should be signed by the supervisor and submitted as verification with the posting package that the information remains accurate. • A copv should b€ maintained with the job description file. This will be an internal document only; nothing will be submitted to CMS. • If there are any changes in boxes 1-15 (CMS 104/PM 1244 (Technical Position Classification Request) or an\' changes at all to job duties, a clarification should be submitted for processing. For the job descriptions which are currently awaiting clarification by the Bureau of Personnel Management, each office/division/district will be contacted with specific information regarding the review. The Verification Form will be made available on line. Until that time, please use the attached document. It is very strongly recommended that upon submittal of an IPR to fill a position, the current job description be reviewed for compliance with the posting guidelines to facilitate the posting process in a timely manner. If action is required, it can be processed concurrently. lf you have any questions, please contact our office at 217 .782.2512. (!'•·~ ----' JD Verification .docx 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-3 Page 3 of 4 Illinois Department of Transportation Verification of Job Description Duties The job description for (classification title), (position number), effective date of ( ) has been reviewed. I verify that the information and duties as reflected remain accurate. Signature JD verification 8.09 Date 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-3 Page 4 of 4 ~ Illinois Department Performance Evaluation and Position Description Review ~ of ltansportation This form shall be submitted to the central Bureau of Personnel Management in conjunction with the appropriate completed performance evaluation form for all employees. Completion of this form verifies that a comparison was conducted of the employee's actual job duties and responsibilities to those listed on the employee's position description. All discovered discrepancies in this review shall be sent to the Bureau Chief of Personnel Management. Verified discrepancies do not guarantee a promotion and/or reclassification; verified discrepancies only confirm that a review will take place of why the discrepancies are apparent. All signatures denote verification of reasonable accuracy of actual responsibilities and the corresponding position description. Failure to comply or falsification of such records may be grounds for discipline, up to and including discharge. Position Number D D D Date of Review Position Title "My signature below denotes accountability of this position description review and that this position description accurately reflects the current job duties and responsibilities." Printed Employee Name Employee Signature* Date Printed Supervisor Name Supervisor Signature* Date "My signature below denotes accountability of this position description review and verifies that discrepancies were found in the official position description versus the actual job duties. A copy of this form and the revised position description will be sent to the Bureau Chief of Personnel Management for review." Printed Employee Name Employee Signature* Date Printed Supervisor Name Supervisor Signature* Date *If authorizing supervisor is a union employee, signature of the next higher level, non-union supervisor is required. Printed Non-Unio1, Supervisor Name Printed 5/30/2018 Non-Union Supervisor Signature* Date PM 1865 (DRAFT) 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-4 Page 1 of 3 E-FILED Friday, 03 August, 2018 01:02:27 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR JRTC, 100 w. RANDOLPH, SUITE 16- roo CHICACO, ILLINOIS 60601 BRUCE RAUNER · GOVERNOR CONFIDENTIAL February 23, 2018 Margaret A. Hickey Executive Inspector General . Office of Executive Inspector General 69 West Washington_, Suite 3400 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Re: OEIG _Comvlaint Number #iS-02180 Response to Final Report Dear Executive Inspector General Hickey, This letter is·in reply to the Office of Executive Inspector General ("OEIG")'s Final Summary Report ("Final Report") to the Governor's Office ("Governor's Office';) in matter #15-02180. With the issuance of this Final Report, the OEIG detemiined that no further investigative action is needed, and this case is consi.dered closed. The OEIG asked the Governor's Office to reply to the Final Report by listing all a~tions the Governor's Office has taken to address the recommendations · the OEIG made relative to the investigation. Governor Raune~'s administration is committed to.reforming the hiring process and eliminating improper p()}itical patronage hiring that has plagued Illinois for decades, and has· worked toward that goa_l ·f.or three years.. In the context of the Shakman case, the Governor's Office has worked closeiy with· the IllinQls Department of Transportatio~ the Cow.t, the Court-appointed Special Master, and the OEI(}'s Division of Hiring and Employµient Monitoring to address longstanding political patronage issues at that agency and, more recently, at all agencies under the Governor's · jurisdiction. As the OEIG knows, we have made substantial pr~griss in that effort. .Th.e Governor's Office was understandably frustrated to learn that, while this extensive work was underway to identify and address problematic positions, the seven Jlegional Client 1'4anager positions were neither escalated to it nor to the agency director ~d tllat the OEIG expended nearly two of effort fo_ investigate them. Had we learned abouJ the problem when you did, we would years 1 EXHIBIT D 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-4 Page 2 of 3 have addressed it promptly by discharging the employees and abolishing the seven positions, which is what we did when we eventually learned. In the future, if you learn of any alleged mismanagement during our. administration that can be resolved if brought to the attention of leadership more promptly, please pay us the courtesy of letting us !mow so we can correct the problem sooner rather than later. The Governor's Office reviewed the Final Report and the investigatory materials furnished to it by the OEIG and responds follows. First, to put in perspective the OEIG's findings and recommendations regarding mismanagement of seven employees at an agency, this Response begins with background regarding broader hiring reforms undertaken to date. Second, the Response sets out steps the Governor's Office and the Department of Central Management Services ("CMS") took upon discovery ofthe problem with the Regional Client Manager positions -ro·-address the· immediate issue~ T:hird,-the Response addresses ·the·-:findings ofthe ·Fmal Report. Fourth, this Response explains additional efforts underway to address the deeper root of this situation more broadly, and which wiU be a critical part of implementing the Final Report's recommendations. Fifth, the Response addresses each of the four recommendations from the Final Report and the specµic action taken in relation to each. as I. Historical hiring practices and efforts to reform them over the past three vears provide important context for understanding the seven positions raised in the Final Report. Historically, most of the improper hiring in the State has been into job-protected positions. That practice is particularly problematic because it enables one administration to saddle its successor with employees loyal to the predecessor. Trying to solve that problem was our top priority for hiring refo~ More recent efforts, particularly over the past year, began looking ·at at-will positions, including 4d(3) exempt positions. While those efforts are no~ yet complete, they are an important step in reforming entrenched, decades-old hiring problem.. . ·an A. Elimination of Rutan Exemptions from Job-Protected Positions 1.AtIDOT J'he Staff Assistant position .at..the. Illinois Department .of Transportation ("IDOT:") undersc~:res the pervasiveness of the State's hiring problem and the persistence necessary to address it. Prior · administrations created and filled more than 250 Sta:ffAssista:nt positions: Those positions had been deemed ''Rutan exempt," meaning they could. be filled outside the competitive hiring process· and an individual's poli,tical or policy views could be consi!iered. By the time ·qovemor Rauner took office, ·many of ~e Staff Assistants had moved on to other jobs. But our aclniiri.istration inherited some oftheiµ. Because they were protected by a collective ba.rgaining agreement and. were the plaintiffs in a pendirlg lawsuit, it took us wen over_ a year to settle the·1aw~t, layoff the remaining Staff Assistants, and abolish the positions. iDOT' now has nc;, Staff Assistants and no Staff Assistant positions. ' Other positions at IDOT had siIµilar problems. They included Safety Issues Analysts, Local Community. &.Safety Liaiso~, Project Managers, and certain Assistm.ts to Bureau Chiefs. The positions were deemed Rutan exempt, but the employees in those positions .:.. all of whom were 2 3:18-cv-03194-SEM-TSH # 1-4 Page 3 of 3 holdovers from a prior administration - were -not performing exempt duties. Our administration at IDOT discharged the employees who had no job protection, laid off the ones who had bargaining-unit job protection, and abolished the positions. ·· With the approval of the court-appointed Special Master ·in the Shakn1an case, the Governor's Office and a_ leadership team at IDOT also reviewed every remaining Rutan-exempt position at IDOT to assess the validity of the exemptions. Prior administrations had created approximately 450 Rutan-exempt positions at IDOT. Our review team read the job description for each of these positions, spoke with the employees who filled or supervised these positions about the actual duties, and concluded that only about 160 of the positions genuinely qualify for the exemption. We shared our conclusions with the Special Master, who agreed with most of our assessments but noted, as we had, that a few of the positions have job protection. A final "Exempt List'' at IDOT now awaits the determination of-which; if any;,positions on the prelifil!Ilary ·listmust be deleted because they gain or retain job protection. Those job-protection determinations depend mostly on which of the listed positions will remain exempt from the State's Personnel Code und~r a statutory provision that excludes "technical and engineering staff' at four State agencies under the Governor's jurisdiction. (See 20 ILCS 4IS/4c(l2) and 3105/8.) The "technical" exemption for ID.OT positions creates a loophole that enabled prior administrations to create hundreds of positions such as Staff Assistant·that did not require technical skills. The easiest way to close that loophole is to adopt a reasonable definition of ''technical.~' So far as we can tell, the State has never defined the term. We have now reached agreement with the Special Master on a definition. To keep the definition air-tight; we. will list in it the specific job classifications or titles that'fit the definition. We are in the middle of the laborintensive process ofreviewing positions at IDOT and the other agencies to identify which positions require technical. or engineering skills. When we reach final agreement with ~e Special Master, we will ask the Shakman court to a~opt our definition as part of our resolution.