« Courts - "A Standard for Fair Trials" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Still more on: "Hoosier Lottery settles federal lawsuit" »
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Ind. Decisions - More on: "Hoosier Lottery settles federal lawsuit"
Updating this ILB entry from earlier today, Peter Schnitzler of the Indianapolis Business Journal has a comprehensive story on the settlement, which the IBJ reports it obtained a copy of. Some quotes from the story:
[The eight plaintiffs] were all fired between January and August 2005 while Esther Schneider—Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels’ first appointee to the position—was the lottery’s executive director.For more, see this entry by Gary Welsh of Advance Indiana, along with the comments.After recording individual complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, they filed federal suit together, alleging civil rights violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Schneider stepped down in December 2006, less than two years after she took the job. On May 1 of this year, her successor, Kathryn Densborn, signed the settlement. IBJ obtained a copy through a public records request. In it, the lottery admits no guilt.
“The Lottery denies any liability for the matters alleged in the lawsuit and contends that the plaintiffs’ terminations of employment were lawful in all respects,” it reads. “The plaintiffs and Lottery now desire to compromise and settle the lawsuit in its entirety.”
The case had been scheduled for a July jury trial. Court records show that the lottery had planned to argue it had been overstaffed and had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for firing the eight black employees, in addition to 26 white employees. The lottery now employs 186.
The lawsuit provides few details surrounding the firings of the black employees, beyond asserting they were based on racial discrimination. * * *
Local law firm Macey Swanson & Allman, which represented the former employees, will receive $841,318 as its share of the settlement; the individual plaintiffs will each receive from $166,893 to $304,079.
Schneider, who was not a defendant, told IBJ she had not been aware of the settlement and was “stunned” by the size of the payment. She denied discrimination was the basis for any firing, and questioned the plaintiffs’ capacity to show proof.
“The decision for a settlement and to pay usually overrides principles for business,” said Schneider, who now works as a consultant. “It’s not the decision I would have made had I still been the director, but it’s not my job anymore.”
None of the parties to the settlement would comment because the agreement specifically prohibits doing so. It includes a “confidentiality and non-publicity” clause restricting disclosure.
“The parties understand and agree that the Lottery is subject to the Access to Public Records Act … and that this agreement may qualify as a public record,” the settlement reads. “The parties nevertheless agree that they shall not directly or indirectly publicize, reveal, or in any other manner draw attention to the settlement or this agreement.
“In the event of media inquiries concerning the settlement or this agreement,” it continues, “the parties will limit their response to a statement that the case was resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.”
That’s the answer both lottery spokesman Andrew Reed and plaintiffs’ attorney Kimberly Jeselskis gave, verbatim, to IBJ’s questions. Daniels’ spokeswoman Jane Jankowski also declined to comment. * * *
Among the 44 questions for potential jurors proposed by the lottery’s counsel:
- “Have you developed any opinion of [Gov.] Mitch Daniels or his administration that would affect your view of the evidence in this case?”
- “Have you visited the Web site www.takingdownwords.com or other Web logs (“blogs”) critical of the management of the Lottery during the administration of Mitch Daniels?”
- “What magazines, journals or newspapers do you regularly read?”
In their 26 proposed juror questions, the plaintiffs’ attorneys also inquire about political leanings: “Have you had any bumper stickers on your car at any time during the last five years? If so, what did they say?”
Court records say the lottery had planned to argue that the plaintiffs had poor performance records; checkered credit histories; negative, insubordinate attitudes; and bad driving records.
This is the second discrimination lawsuit the lottery has settled stemming from Schneider’s reign.
In April 2008, it agreed to pay $225,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by former General Counsel Janna Shisler alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. * * *
That settlement was first reported by the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette last year. Like the settlement with black employees, it contains a confidentiality clause that prevents parties from calling attention to the matter.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on May 16, 2009 05:11 PM
Posted to Ind Fed D.Ct. Decisions