| Prospectives |
 |
| Students |
|
| Alumni |
|
| Faculty |
 |
| Academics |
|
| Life |
|
| Socrates |
|
| Blogs |
|
| News |
|
| Calendar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
 |
||||||
 |
Employment Discrimination Project Third Year Students Second Year Students
Second-year students in the Project handle several cases individually and "second chair" other cases along with third-year students. Second-year students autonomously handle cases that the Department is investigating. In these cases, students interview clients and witnesses, assist in the preparation of written briefs and memoranda explaining why our client was the victim of discrimination, and represent clients at informal hearings before the Department. Second- and third-year students jointly handle cases in the Commission at various pre-trial and trial stages. They are involved in discovery (drafting requests, responding to the employers' discovery, reviewing the information produced in discovery, etc.), and pre-trial preparation (i.e., interviewing witnesses, drafting the pre-trial memorandum, etc.). Second-year students are given the opportunity to attend status hearings and hearings on contested motions, along with the third-year student assigned to the case. Moreover, if the case goes to trial, the second-year student are actively involved in all phases of trial preparation and attend the trial. Third-year students in the Project are assigned cases that are awaiting trial in the Commission. In these cases, third-year students attend status conferences, argue contested motions, engage in discovery, negotiate with the employer and prepare the case for trial. If the case goes to trial, third-year students are expected to be the lead attorney on the case. The Project also handles, or is otherwise involved in, several appeals each year. Both second- and third-year students work on these appeals researching and drafting our appellate briefs. If possible, third-year students present the oral arguments in the appeals.
The Employment Discrimination Project won another victory in its efforts to improve and reform the Illinois anti-discrimination agencies. In March of 2004, Randall Schmidt testified against a proposal by Governor Rod Blagojevich to merge the two state agencies that handle claims of employment discrimination. Schmidt testified that the merger of the two agencies would contaminate the integrity and fairness of the system and would raise serious due process issues. A week later, Gov. Blagojevich announced that the plan was "off the table." Shortly thereafter, Schmidt and his students began a series of meetings (that are still on-going) with officials from the state anti-discrimination agencies designed to develop and implement ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the agencies. Cooper v. Salazar In 1998, the Employment Discrimination Project filed a class action against Carlos J. Salazar, Director of the Illinois Department of Human Rights (DHR). The DHR is the state agency that initially processes claims of discrimination. The plaintiffs alleged that several changes made in 1996 to the DHR's practices and procedures used in resolving charges of discrimination deprived the class members of their constitutional right to due process. Specifically, the plaintiffs challenged three aspects of the DHR's proceedings. First, they maintained that the Director's practice of allowing investigators to make credibility determinations (and his subsequent reliance on those credibility decisions in deciding the claim) denied the class due process because there was no opportunity for individual members of the class to confront or cross-examine witnesses during the DHR proceeding. Second, the plaintiffs contended that due process entitled them to review portions of the investigation file, the only official record of DHR investigations, when preparing Requests for Review (which are like appeals) of the Director's dismissals of their claims. Finally, the plaintiffs challenged the procedure wherein the Director's dismissal orders were reviewed not by the Illinois Human Rights Commission, but by the Chief Legal Counsel of the DHR, legal advisor to the Department and a subordinate of the Director. The District Court certified the class and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining some of the challenged procedures in 1999. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction in late 1999. 196 F. 3d 809 (7th Cir. 1999). After completing discovery, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment during the summer of 2001. On November 1, 2001, the District Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment and issued a permanent injunction barring the DHR from following the challenged practices and procedures. 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17952. Specifically, the Court enjoined the DHR from relying on credibility determinations made without affording the rights of confrontation and cross-examination. The Court also ordered the DHR to provide class members who pursue Requests for Review with access to their investigative files, including notes of witness statements. Finally, the Court ordered the DHR either to return to the Request for Review procedures in place before January 1, 1996 (under which Requests for review were decided by the Human Rights Commission) or to implement the substantial equivalent of those procedures while continuing to vest jurisdiction in the Chief Legal Counsel of the DHR. The Employment Discrimination Project is now working with the DHR as it takes steps to implement the Court's permanent injunction. |
|
|
|||
Contact