My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
R97-132 SCHEDULING POST-ORDER BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS
COD
>
City Clerk
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
1997
>
R97-132 SCHEDULING POST-ORDER BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/14/2016 4:39:04 PM
Creation date
4/14/2016 4:39:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Resolution/Ordinance
Res Ord Num
R97-132
Res Ord Title
SCHEDULING POST-ORDER BRIEFS AND ARGUMENTS - JOHN BOND V. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE
Approved Date
9/2/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
� . � <br /> LEGAL DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM <br /> No. 97-25 <br /> August 27, 1997 <br /> TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members <br /> FROM: James L. Williams, Jr., City Manager <br /> John W. Couter, Corporation Counsel <br /> RE: John Bond v. Bridgestone/Firestone <br /> On July 28, 1997, the City of Decatur Human Rights Commission entered an order <br /> finding that Bridgestone/Firestone violated Chapter 28 of the City Code by terminating John <br /> Bond because of his race. Because this matter was decided by the affirmative vote of fewer than <br /> nine (9) members of the Commission, Bridgestone/Firestone has the right to have Council review <br /> the order. After review, the Council may affirm or reverse all or any part of the order. Because <br /> Chapter 28 is silent on the exact procedures to be followed in the review of a Commission order, <br /> it is advisable for the Council to adopt some basic rules and establish some dates to govern this <br /> review. <br /> A resolution has been prepared which sets out some of these rules and dates. The parties <br /> are in accord with these, with one exception: John Bond's attorney feels that they should be <br /> given equal time at oral argument. However, the Illinois Supreme Court Rules for appellate <br /> argument provide that the appellant (here, Bridgestone/Firestone) should be given additional <br /> time for rebuttal, primarily because it is the party with the burden of proof. While the Supreme <br /> Court Rules do not apply here, they would seem to provide a good model and I would <br /> recommend that the Council follow their guidance. <br /> Priar to the oral argument, the Council will be given a transcript of the hearing and the <br /> briefs submitted by the parties. At argument, the Council will be permitted to question the <br /> attorneys. Following argument, the Council will have thirty (30) days in which to make a <br /> decision. Council may have a study session on this matter, but the final resolution must be <br /> adopted within thirty (30) days of oral argument. If no decision is made within thirty (30) days, <br /> the Commission's order will be considered affirmed. <br /> JWC:ps <br /> cc: Wendy L. Morthland <br /> John T. Robinson <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.