Google Answers Logo
View Question
 
Q: Litigation with Chicago's Navy Pier. ( Answered,   0 Comments )
Question  
Subject: Litigation with Chicago's Navy Pier.
Category: Business and Money
Asked by: matz-ga
List Price: $5.00
Posted: 09 Mar 2004 15:23 PST
Expires: 08 Apr 2004 16:23 PDT
Question ID: 315043
On what basis was Navy Pier or MPEA (Metropolitan Pier and Exposition
Authority)sued in 1995?
Answer  
Subject: Re: Litigation with Chicago's Navy Pier.
Answered By: bobcooper-ga on 09 Mar 2004 16:21 PST
 
Dear matz-ga,

There were 3 cases that came up against the Metropolitan Pier and
Exposition Authority in 1995.

The first case was a Civil Rights/EEOC case.  

The second case was an appeal of a 1992 case on taxation.

I have the summary information on both cases below.

The third case does not appear to have gone to trial.  

The owners of the old McCormick Center Hotel, claimed that they were
illegally frozen out of the deal to operate a new hotel near McCormick
Place by the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority.  They sued
the authority for more than $50 million.  The suit accused the
authority of negotiating in bad faith with the partnership when it
offered to lease property to build a hotel, but under terms so
unfavorable that the deal became unfeasible.

I hope this helps.

Case #1:

JAMES BINION, SHERIDAN CLARK, WILLIE COUSINS, and ODDIE GREENE,
Plaintiffs, v. METROPOLITAN PIER AND EXPOSITION AUTHORITY, Defendant.

No. 94 C 3814

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS,
EASTERN DIVISION

163 F.R.D. 517
 
September 12, 1995, Decided  
September 15, 1995, DOCKETED

CASE SUMMARY 

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, black janitors, appealed the order
from the lower court (Illinois), which denied their motion to certify
their class in their class action suit against defendant employer for
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42
U.S.C.S.  1981.


OVERVIEW: One of the janitors filed a pro se claim with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that he was subject
to discrimination at work in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C.S. 1981. He also stated that he
believed blacks were discriminated against by the employer as a class.
The EEOC decided not to sue on his behalf, but gave him a right-to-sue
letter to file an action in federal district court. He filed a pro se
complaint and was appointed counsel. The janitor's counsel
unsuccessfully requested leave to file a motion to certify the class
with four janitors as representatives. On appeal, the court granted
the motion to certify the janitors' class. The court found that the
janitors' class claims satisfied the commonality and typicality
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and that the janitors had
provided testimony and statistical evidence showing the operation and
effect of an identifiable, written, and possibly discriminatory
disciplinary policy. The court found that the first janitor's EEOC
claim made classwide allegations, and so he was entitled to begin a
federal action containing those allegations.


OUTCOME: The court granted the janitors' motion to certify their
class. The court found that the janitors showed commonality and
typicality, and that the charged filed with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission opened the class membership period for their
claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 
1981.



Case #2:

EDWARD TERRY, RHONDA STIVERS, THOMAS ROBINSON and LAWRENCE M. BRAUN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. METROPOLITAN PIER AND EXPOSITION AUTHORITY,
a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1-93-2881

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FOURTH DIVISION

271 Ill. App. 3d 446; 648 N.E.2d 1047; 208 Ill. Dec. 125

 March 31, 1995, Filed

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:  [***1]  Released for Publication May 9, 1995.

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. Honorable
Earl Arkiss, Judge Presiding.

DISPOSITION: Affirmed.


CASE SUMMARY 

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, vehicle operators and passengers,
challenged an order dismissing their class action complaint
challenging the constitutionality of the Airport Departure Tax
Ordinance, Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, Ill., Airport
Departure Tax Ordinance  1-3 (1992), by the Circuit Court of Cook
County (Illinois).


OVERVIEW: The Airport Departure Tax Ordinance, Metropolitan Pier and
Exposition Authority, Ill., Airport Departure Tax Ordinance  1-3
(1992), imposed an occupation tax on all commercial vehicle operators
departing from a metropolitan airport. The tax was to assist in
financing an expansion project. The operators and passengers
challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance. The trial court
dismissed the complaint and the court affirmed. Although the burden of
the tax was passed on to the passengers, the court held that their
claim failed because the incidence of the tax rested on the operators.
The court held that the ordinance did not violate the operators' due
process, equal protection, or uniformity clause rights. The court
noted that the operators benefited directly from the project and that
they failed to establish a distinction between classes of operators
who were taxed and those who were not. The scheme was found to be a
workable method to tax those who would benefit directly from the
project and reasonably related to its goal. The ordinance did not
violate the commerce clause of U.S. Const. art. I,  8 because it was
imposed only on operators doing business within the state.


OUTCOME: The court affirmed the order dismissing the class action
complaint of the operators and passengers and found the Airport
Departure Tax Ordinance to be constitutional.
Comments  
There are no comments at this time.

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  


Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy