City Ordinance May Have Established Employment Contract
In 2007, Anthony
Boswell was hired as the Executive Director of the City of Chicago’s Office of
Compliance. Prior to this period, the
City of Chicago had been involved in a series of lawsuits later known as the
Shakman litigation, which resulted in the City's agreement to eliminate political
consideration from employment. The
federal courts eventually adopted the City’s hiring plan which included Boswell,
as the head of the Office of Compliance. Boswell was appointed for a fixed term to be
the head of the Office of Compliance and could not be removed except for cause.
Boswell resigned
in 2010 and two years later sued the City of Chicago for breach of contract and
promissory estoppel. Boswell argued his work was met with “resistance and hostility” and he
was often subject to “a campaign of petty and overt harassment.”
The trial court dismissed the case, but the appellate court reversed, finding that Boswell's argument that the City's ordinance created a contract for the
executive director position was sufficient to move forward. In the court's view, the ordinance specified the intent
to create a contract with the executive director and the intent of by the city
council to set the executive director apart from every other city
employee. The court also held that the executive director of an independent compliance
office is not a typical "at-will" employee and should be able to rely on some contractual rights in order to exercise independence, discretion, and latitude necessary for this type of position. So, the court reversed the dismissal of Boswell's claims, and the case moves to the next stage where Boswell will have to show that the City's ordinance actually created a contract.
The court also addressed Boswell’s promissory estoppel claim. It acknowledged that estoppel
against public bodies is generally disfavored and allowed in only in rare circumstances,
when necessary to prevent fraud and injustice. Here, however, Boswell's claims that the City promised that his office would be
independent from political pressures and that he would be in control over his office were sufficient to move his estoppel claim forward. Boswell v. City of Chicago, 2016 IL App (1st)150871.
Post Authored by
Megan Mack, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment