ELECTRONICALLY FILED | “ya/2015 3:18 PM 2015-1-002240 | CALENDAR: X | PAGE 1 of 8 ‘ CIRCUIT COURT OF INTHE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, 1 LANG ROK COUNTY IELINOIS ‘COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION _ CLERK DOROTHY BROWN WILLIAM VAIL, Plaintiff, v. No. CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, in its capacity as indemnitor of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Minois, Defendants. COMPLAINT NOW COMES the Plaintiff, WILLIAM VAIL, by and through his attomeys, ASPERGER ASSOCIATES LLC, and complaining against the CLERK. OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, end COOK. COUNTY, ILLINOIS, in its capacity as indemnitor of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Iinois, states as follows: ALLEGATIONS RELEVANT TO ALL COUNTS |. Plaintiff, William Vail, is an individual who resides in the Village of Oak Lawn, County of Cook, State of Illinois. 2. The Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ilinois (the “Clerk”, is situated in the County of Cook, State of Iinois. 3, One of the functions and duties of the Clerk is to submit certain criminal arrest, charge and disposition information tothe Illinois Department of State Police (the “State Police”). 4, On July 10, 1992, Plaintiff was arrested by the Village of Wilmette, Ilinois, Police Department. 5, Plaintiff was 19 years old at the time of his arrest.6. Plaintiff was charged with burglary, which is a Class 2 felony. ‘The criminal case against Plaintiff was styled The People of the State of Illinois v. William J. Vail, Case No. 922004024. The criminal proceedings were held at the Circuit Court ‘of Cook County, Illinois, Second Municipal District, in Skokie, Illinois. During the course of the criminal proceedings, Plaintiff reached a plea agreement with the State’s Attorney, by which Plaintiff agreed to plead guilty to theft, which is a Class A misdemeanor, while the Class 2 felony burglary charge would be dropped. On November 17, 1992, Plaintiff appeared before Judge Jerome Orbach in the “Second Municipal District of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, and pled guilty to the reduced charge of theft, a Class A misdemeanor. The Court accepted his plea to theft and dismissed the felony burglary charge. 18 PM 10. After the close of the criminal proceedings, the Clerk disseminated information to the State Police regarding the disposition of Plaintiff's case, which included a statement that 3/4/2015 3: Plaintiff had been convicted of burglary, a Class 2 felony. ELECTRONICALLY FILED ‘2015-L-002240 PAGE 2 of 8 11. The conviction information disseminated by the Clerk to the State Police was ~ inaccurate. 12. In October 2014, Plaintiff was employed as an engineer with Anchor Mechanical, Ine. 13, Around that time, Anchor Mechanical had secured a contract to provide services to Cook County's Stroger Hospital. 14. Stroger Hospital required criminal background checks on those Anchor Mechanical employees that were to be assigned to the project, including Plaintiff18PM_ 3/4/2015 3: FLECTRONICALLY FILED 2015-1-002240 PAGE 3 of 8 15. Plaintiff was fingerprinted as part of that process. His fingerprints were subsequently submitted to the State Police to run his criminal history. 16. The State Police issued a record of Plaintiff's criminal history, which reflected a conviction for burglary, a Class 2 felony, in relation to the aforementioned 1992 proceedings, ‘The record reflecting the conviction of a felony was inaccurate, 17. With the inclusion of a felony on Plaintiff's criminal history record, Plaintiff was denied the position at Stroger Hospital. 18, Plaintiff subsequently leamed that he was denied the position at Stroger Hospital ‘because his criminal history record included a felony conviction. 19, Plaintiff neither knew, nor reasonably should have known, that his criminal ‘history record incorrectly included a felony conviction until October 2014, when he was denied the position at Stroger Hospital. 20. Plaintiff immediately undertook to correct the inaccuracy and remove the felony tonviction from his criminal history record 21. On November 7, 2014, Plaintiff obtained the transcript of his November 17, 1992, ‘court proceeding during which the Court accepted Plaintiff's plea of guilty to a misdemeanor, and did not impose a felony conviction. 22. On December 24, 2014, Plaintiff presented a motion in the Circuit Court of Cook County, llinois, to correct the inaccuracy in his criminal history record, and to remove the felony conviction. 23. On December 24, 2014, the Court entered an Order as follows: 1) confirming that the felony burglary charge was dismissed on November 17, 1992; 2) confirming that Plaintiff was only convicted of theft, a Class A misdemeanor, 3) directing the Clerk of the Circuit Courtof Cook County to correct the official court records in the Plaintiff's criminal proceeding; and 4) directing the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County to transmit a comected certified statement of the conviction/disposition to the Ilinois State Police, Bureau of Identification, (See Exhibit A - Order). 24, Entry of the December 24, 2014, Order was agreed to by the State’s Attorney. COUNTI NEGLIGENCE - Violation of. form Conviction Information Act (Defendant - Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois) 25. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 24 as and for Paragraph 25 as ‘iE fully set forth herein. | 26. Im 1989, the Ilinois legislature enacted the Illinois Uniform Conviction Information Act (the “Act”), 20 ILCS 2635/1, et seq. 27. The purpose of the Act is to establish a uniform policy for access and dissemination of conviction information, set guidelines that would support effective law 2015-1.-002240 PAGE 4 of 8 enforcement, ensure the accuracy of conviction information, and provide individuals with a form ELECTRONICALLY FILED ‘3/4/2015 3:18 PM of redress for grievances if inaccurate or incomplete information was disseminated about them. "20 ILCS 2635/2(B). 28. ‘At all times relevant to this cause of action, the Act was in full force and effect. 29. Atal times relevant to this cause of action, the Clerk was subject to the Act. 30. Pursuant to the Act, the Clerk owed a duty to Plaintiff to disseminate accurate and complete criminal history and conviction information regarding Plaintiff to the State Police. The Clerk breached this duty owed to PlaintitY through one or more of the18PM 2015-1-002240, PAGE 5 of 8 ELECTRONICALLY FILED ‘3/4/2015 3: b) It inaccurately reported to the State Police that Plaintiff was convicted of a felony; ©) It inaccurately reported to the State Police that certain sentencing was imposed on Plaintiff for the reported felony burglary conviction; d) It failed to report to the State Police that Plaintiff was not convicted of burglary; ©) It failed to report to the State Police that Plaintiff was not convicted of a felony; £) It failed to report to the State Police that the felony burglary cherge against Plaintiff was dismiss. 2) It failed to report to the State Police that Plaintiff was not sentenced on the felony burglary charge; and/or h) Other negligent acts and/or omissions. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the Clerk’s aforementioned negligent acts And/or omissions, the felony conviction remained on Plaintiff's criminal history record from 1992 through 2014, 33. As a direct and proximate result of the Clerk's aforementioned negligent acts and/or omissions, Plaintiff was damaged in the following respects: a) he was denied employment i ~ positions he otherwise would have received; b) he was denied promotions he otherwise would have received; 3) he was denied wage increases he otherwise would have reccived; 4) he has Jost, and will continue to lose, a significant amount of income and benefits; 5) his reputation has been damaged; 6) he has suffered and will continue to suffer from mental and emotional anguish and distress; 7) his marriage was irreparably damaged; 8) he has expended time and money to cure the inaccurate criminal history disseminated by the Clerk; and 9) he has otherwise been damaged. 34, Plaintiff is atso seeking attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by the Act.35. Pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/2-101(), Plaintiff's right to obtain relief under the linois Uniform Conviction Information Act shall not be barred by the Tort Immunity Act. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, plus attomeys? fees, costs, and any other relief deemed just. COUNT RES IPSA LOQUITUR - Violation of the Uniform Conviction Information Act ‘Defendant - Clerk of the Cireuit Court of Cook County, Mlinois) 36. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 24 as and for Paragraph 36 as “Yf flly set forth herein. i 37. In 1989, the Mlinois legislature enacted the Illinois Uniform Conviction Information Act (the “Act”), 20 ILCS 2635/1, et seq. 38. ‘The purpose of the Act is to establish a uniform policy for access and dissemination of conviction information, set guidelines that would support effective law 2015-1.-002240 PAGE 6 of 8 ‘enforcement, ensure the accuracy of conviction information, and provide individuals with a form ELECTRONICALLY FILED. ‘3/4/2015 3:18 PM of redress for grievances if inaccurate or incomplete information was disseminated about them. 20 ILCS 2635/2(B). 39, _Atall times relevant to this cause of action, the Act was in full force and effect. 40. Atall times relevant to this cause of action, the Clerk was subject to the Act. 41. Pursuant to the Act, the Clerk owed a duty to Plaintiff to disseminate accurate and complete criminal history and conviction information regarding Plaintiff to the State Police, 42. Atal times material and relevant here, the Clerk had exclusive and sole control ‘over its dissemination of Plaintiff's conviction information to the State Police, including theELECTRONICALLY FILED 18PM PAGE 7 of § 3/4/2015 3: 20151 accuracy of the information it provided and the manner in which the information was disseminated. 43. The dissemination of inaccurate conviction information to the State Police ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence. 44. That the Clerk was negligent in disseminating inaccurate conviction information regarding Plaintiff to the State Police speaks for itself, 45. As a direct and proximate result of the Clerk’s negligent dissemination of inaccurate conviction information regarding Plaintiff to the State Police, the felony conviction “remained on Plaintiffs criminal history record from 1992 through 2014, 46. As a direct and proximate result of the Clerk’s aforementioned negligent acts andfot omissions, Plaintiff was damaged in the following respects: a) he was denied employment Positions he otherwise would have received; b) he was denied promotions he otherwise would have received; 3) he was denied wage increases he otherwise would have received; 4) he has Jost, and will continue to lose, a significant amount of income and benefits; 5) his reputation has been damaged; 6) he has suffered and will continue to suffer from mental and emotional anguish ~ and distress; 7) his marriage was irreparably damaged; 8) he has expended time and money to cure the inaccurate criminal history disseminated by the Clerk; and 9) he has otherwise been damaged. 47. Plainti is also seeking attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by the Act. 48. Pursuant to 745 ILCS 10/2-101(f), Plaintiff's right to obtain relief under the Illinois Uniform Conviction Information Act shall not be barred by the Tort Immunity Act,i 3 a g < & WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Iinois, in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, plus attomeys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed just. COUNT III — INDEMNIFICATION ‘(Defendant - Cook County, Iilincis) 49, Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 48 as and for Paragraph 49 as if fully set forth herein. 50. Defendant Cook County, Illinois, owes indemnification pursuant to 745 ILCS 109-102 of any liability adjudicated against the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, linois. \ WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against Cook County, linois, in its capacity as indemnitor of the Clerk of the Cireuit Court of Cook County, Iiinois, in an amount in excess of $75,000.00, plus attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief deemed just. Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM VAIL By: ‘One of Phaintifi’s|ttdmeys Jeffrey J, Asperger Bary L. Gasman ASPERGER ASSOCIATES LLC 180 N. Stetson Ave,, Suite 3050 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 856-9901 Fax: (312) 856-9905 Attorney ID# 41455