The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bua, District Judge.
The instant case is before the Court on a petition for a Rule
to Show Cause why the defendants should not be held in contempt
of the 1972 consent decree entered in Shakman v. Democratic
Organization of Cook County, No. 69 C 2145, reprinted in Shakman
v. Democratic Organization of Cook County, 481 F. Supp. 1315, 1356
app. (N.D.Ill. 1979). Before the Court is the defendants' Motion
to Dismiss the plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint. For the
reasons stated herein, defendants' motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
The instant case was originally filed on June 22, 1983. In the
Second Amended Complaint, the six plaintiffs allege that they are
all employed by the City of Chicago as Water Rate Takers in the
City's Department of Water. They contend that prior to the time
of the filing of the instant suit, the defendants gave
preferential treatment in promotions to the position of
Supervisor of Water Rate Takers to individuals who obtained
recommendations and political sponsorship from high ranking
officials of the local Democratic Party and from local ward
organizations. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that in order
to be promoted, an individual was required to obtain the
requisite recommendation which would be communicated to the
Mayor's Office. The Mayor's Office would then request that the
Department of Water appoint the recommended person as Supervisor.
Plaintiffs contend that nine individuals obtained their
Supervisor's position in the above manner. As to six of these
appointments, made prior to August, 1979, no public notice was
given announcing the availability of the positions. As to the
remaining three, a March, 1982 announcement gave notice of the
availability of the positions. This notice stated that a test
would be given for the position and would be open only to
applicants who were residents of the City of Chicago who had a
minimum of two years experience as Water Rate Takers or the
equivalent training and experience.
The plaintiffs were found eligible for the positions and, on
June 26, 1982, took the test. Having passed the examination, on
July 15, 1982 the plaintiffs' names were placed on the
eligibility list from which the Supervisor positions were to be
filled. Also on the list were the names of two other individuals
who had taken the test with plaintiffs, and the name of Wyman
Porche who had not. In September, 1982, Wyman Porche was
permanently appointed Supervisor of Water Rate Takers pursuant to
the political sponsorship and preferences of Alderman Wilson
Frost and State Representative Emille Jones.*fn1
In December, 1982, an administrative assistant to defendant
John Corey, Commissioner of the Department of Water, received a
phone call from an administrative assistant to Jane Byrne who, at
that time, was Mayor of the City of Chicago. The administrative
assistant requested that Michael Miller and Emanuel Estaban be
appointed supervisors despite the fact that neither was on the
eligibility list.
The plaintiffs contend that because their names properly
appeared on the eligibility list, they should have been made
Supervisors instead of the individuals chosen. Therefore,
plaintiffs request that the Court order the removal of the nine
Supervisors from their positions and order the defendants to
appoint the plaintiffs to the vacant Supervisor positions with
full back pay and employment benefits dating from June, 1982, the
time plaintiffs contend they should have been appointed to the
Supervisor jobs.
The defendants have moved to dismiss claiming: 1) that the
plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under the 1972 Shakman
consent decree; 2) that laches should bar the claims concerning
the promotions made prior to the advancements of Estaban and
Miller; and 3) that the second amended complaint should be
dismissed because it is unverified. The Court will address each
contention seriatim.
I. Failure to State a Claim Under the 1972 Shakman Consent Decree
The defendants contend that the instant case involves
politically motivated hiring which is not covered by the 1972
Shakman decree and that the plaintiffs have thus failed to state
a claim thereunder. The plaintiffs counter by arguing that the
very language of the 1972 decree mandates application of that
consent order to the instant case.
Under the 1972 decree, the defendants are prohibited from:
(1) Conditioning, basing or knowingly prejudicing or
affecting any term or aspect of government
employment, with respect to one who is at the time
already a government employee, upon ...