A contentious legal battle has emerged between a former administrative assistant and her previous employer, centered around allegations of emotional distress and subsequent claims of falsehood. Jacqueline Shooper filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County on July 26, 2024, against Louis A. Palivos, who operates The Law Office of Louis A. Palivos.
The case began when Shooper, who was employed by Palivos, alleged that he inflicted intentional emotional distress upon her during her tenure. According to Shooper's complaint, Palivos exhibited "extreme and outrageous" behavior which included threats to terminate her employment after she informed him of her rights under the Illinois Pregnancy Act of 2015. Additionally, she claimed that he ignored her requests to refrain from performing building maintenance duties while pregnant and accused her of extortion when she requested stable pay if her hours were reduced post-maternity leave.
Believing they had reached a settlement, Palivos moved to dismiss the complaint and enforce the agreement. However, after oral arguments on March 8, 2022, Judge James E. Snyder denied this motion but continued discussions for potential settlement. On March 15, 2022, the court granted Palivos' motion to dismiss Shooper's complaint. Shooper then sought clarification and reconsideration of this order but faced opposition from Palivos who also filed for sanctions against her.
Palivos' petition for sanctions argued that Shooper's claims were baseless and frivolous, asserting that neither she nor her counsel conducted an objective investigation into the factual allegations. Despite these contentions, on April 18, 2023, Judge Catherine A. Schneider denied both Shooper’s motions for clarification and reconsideration as well as Palivos’ petition for sanctions.
On appeal, Palivos argued that the trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing regarding his sanctions request and failing to award sanctions against Shooper’s counsel for allegedly filing unfounded claims. He further contended that Shooper’s counsel waived their right to argue against sanctions by not responding adequately to his motion.
The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decisions. It emphasized that Supreme Court Rule 137 is designed to prevent judicial process abuse through vexatious actions based on unsupported facts or law but requires strict adherence due to its penal nature. The court highlighted that without sufficient records or transcripts from key hearings provided by Palivos, it must presume the trial court acted within its discretion.
Ultimately, Justice Lyle affirmed the lower court's judgment with Presiding Justice Mitchell and Justice Mikva concurring in the decision.
Judges James E. Snyder and Catherine A. Schneider presiding over various aspects of the case under Case ID No. 1-23-0900.