Court Says Cop's Criticism Isn't Protected Speech
Recent Cases
An Illinois State Police officer was not wrongfully transferred for accusing his superiors of sabotaging his investigation of a cold-case murder, the 7th Circuit ruled.
Plaintiff Michale Callahan filed a First Amendment retaliation claim against his superiors, Steven Fermon and Diane Carper.
Judge Ripple ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos determined that the First Amendment did not protect the free speech of a public employee acting in his official capacity.
Callahan's investigation indicated that the two men serving life sentences for the murders could not have committed the crime. Callahan then came to believe that the real killer was a man who had made significant contributions to the campaigns of the attorney general and the governor.
Callahan alleged that when he told Fermon and Carper about the results of his investigation, he was asked to pursue lesser charges against the contributor and to stop investigating the murder because of the case's political sensitivity.
After tension became too high in the police department, Callahan was transferred to another precinct.
The trial court had ruled in favor of Callahan, and the Garcetti decision came down during the defendants' appeal.
Related listings
-
Ex-Lottery Commissioner Loses Conviction Appeal
Recent Cases 05/20/2008The 4th Circuit upheld the conviction and sentencing of ex-North Carolina lottery commissioner Kevin Geddings, who concealed the fact that he had a conflict of interest with a lottery vendor. A federal jury convicted Geddings of five counts of mail f...
-
Skycaps File National Class Action
Recent Cases 05/16/2008Employers are cheating airport skycaps nationwide by paying them less than minimum wage and discouraging tipping by charging a $2 per bag "baggage fee," which customers falsely believe will be given to the skycaps, the skycaps say in a federal class ...
-
Avandia Securities Class Action Dismissed
Recent Cases 05/15/2008A federal judge dismissed a shareholders' class-action complaint that accused GlaxoSmithKline of violating securities laws by withholding or manipulating information about its heart drug Avandia. U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton dismissed for failur...
What Is Meant by ‘No-Fault’ Workers’ Compensation in Illinois?
If you were injured in a work-related accident and have been researching workers’ compensation, you may have seen it described as a “no-fault” system. One of the most important things to understand about the workers’ compensation system in Illinois is that it is based on a “no-fault” system. What does this mean, exactly?
Most employers in Illinois are required by law to have workers’ compensation insurance. And the workers' compensation in Illinois is a “no-fault” system, which means that any worker who has been hurt on the job is entitled to workers' compensation benefits. If you have been hurt on the job, you are entitled to workers’ compensation benefits no matter whose fault the accident was.
A no-fault insurance system, such as workers’ comp, works by paying claims regardless of who is to blame for an accident. This provides an important layer of protection for injured workers, sparing them from having to through additional litigation and the through the additional burden of proving who was at fault before receiving benefits.
In Illinois, even though you don’t have to prove that your injury was your employer’s fault, you do have to prove that your injury happened at work or as a result of work. If you would like help to file your workers' compensation claim, Krol, Bongiorno, & Given’s experienced workers' comp lawyers are here to help. With over 60 years of combined legal experience, the KBG law firm is a leader in the field of workers’ compensation law and we have earned the reputation as aggressive advocates for injured workers before the IWCC.