CHICAGO — A former Midway International Airport safety supervisor will be allowed to continue his lawsuit against Chicago and his former supervisors whom he accuses of retaliation for a whistleblowing report on falsified runway conditions intended to benefit Southwest Airlines.
U.S. District Judge John Lee issued an opinion Sept. 16, ruling in favor of Michael Conway. Working as an operations supervisor in 2018, Conway told the Federal Aviation Administration and Chicago Office of the Inspector General that Midway’s top officials, Costas Simos and Erin O’Donnell-Russel, allegedly ordered workers to lie about runway conditions. Lee said those “statements led to multiple investigations that eventually confirmed the existence of the scheme.”
Conway later sued, accusing Simos, O’Donnell and the city of violating his First Amendment rights as well as the Illinois Whistleblower Act based on allegations of “pervasive and continuous allegations,” according to Lee, who agreed to dismiss only part of Conway’s complaint against the city and O’Donnell.
The Chicago Department of Aviation hired Conway in 1995; he became a supervisor in 1998. According to court documents, Simos was CDA’s deputy commissioner until retiring in April 2020. He reported to O’Donnell, who was Midway’s managing deputy commissioner until retiring in July 2019.
According to court records, Simos called Conway on Feb. 17, 2019, as he observed Southwest crews “heavily de-icing a taxiway at various gate positions.” Although Conway said runway was in “clear/wet” conditions, Simos allegedly told him to change the condition to “clear/dry,” ignoring Conway’s objections that one of his workers had reported it as wet just 30 minutes prior.
“Simos indicated that the directive had come from O’Donnell,” Lee wrote, “and emphasized that Southwest needs our help!’ In fact, according to Conway, the directive from O’Donnell came at the behest of Southwest, which had a financial incentive to circumvent regulations that prohibited heavily laden aircraft from landing in wet conditions.”
Conway and Simos had a heated confrontation later that week, and Conway said Simos continued to order other workers to also change runway conditions in the FAA’s reporting system. Conway also said his colleagues fielded numerous queries from air traffic controllers about airfield conditions.
After Conway took a Southwest pilot out to a runway to show him a “dry” runway clearly wet with de-icing agent, Simos allegedly ordered a supervisor to give Conway a verbal reprimand and then made the supervisor order Conway to keep quiet about the issue. By July 2018 Conway was excluded from meetings, training and other activities. He said he was suspended in October 2018 for a minor infraction, while other employees went unpunished for the same conduct, and heard Simos asked colleagues to prepare “denigrating statements” about him.
Once the FAA and OIG published reports supporting Conway’s account, the alleged retaliation intensified. Conway said Simos allegedly ordered staff to spy on him and wanted supervisors to report their conversations. In December 2018 O’Donnell stripped Conway of the privilege of driving on runways or taxiways unescorted, “the first time in his 23 years of service” he recalls someone in his position facing that consequence.
Conway also said O’Donnell allegedly forced schedule changes that kept him from being the senior worker on duty, forbade him from working in the office and relegated him to trivial and eventually menial tasks. He also alleged false disciplinary notices throughout 2019 and a baseless 15-day suspension, and said in 2019 and 2020 he was excluded from a colleague’s retirement party, had routine raises reversed, was taxed 45% on reimbursement of those raises and was tailed while inspecting parking lots.
Lee agreed Conway adequately alleged his reports to the FAA and OIG were protected under the First Amendment, that the ensuing conduct depriving him of rights and responsibilities was intended to deter future speech and that his “complaint more than plausibly draws the requisite link between Conway’s protected speech and the adversity he experienced,” Lee wrote.
Because Conway’s allegations included events into 2020, and he filed his complaint in late August that year, Lee refused Simos' request to dismiss the Whistleblower Act complaint as time-barred under state law. The judge also held that Conway's allegations were strong enough to keep the city of Chicago on the hook for the alleged behavior of Simos and O'Donnell, who the judge said served as decisionmakers at the airport, which is run by the city.
Judge Lee, however, said O’Donnell can fly away from the case at this point, because her retirement date was more than a year prior to the filing, making Conway's lawsuit against her too late.
Conway is represented in the case by attorneys Subodh Chandra and Donald Screen, of The Chandra Law Firm, of Chicago, and Jamie S. Franklin, of the Employment and Civil Litigation Clinic, at Chicago-Kent College of Law.
Simos is represented by Juanita B. Rodriguez and Danielle A. Kirby, of JBR Law Group, of Chicago, acting as special assistant city corporation counsel.
The city is represented by Melanie Patrick Neely, corporation counsel with the Chicago City Department of Law.