Politics
Chicago Taxpayers to Pay $87,500 to Settle Lawsuit Claiming Ald. Jim Gardiner Violated First Amendment by Blocking Critics from Official Facebook Page
Ald. Jim Gardiner (45th Ward) on the floor of the Chicago City Council. (WTTW News)
Chicago taxpayers will pay $87,500 to resolve a lawsuit that claimed Ald. Jim Gardiner (45th Ward) violated the First Amendment by blocking six critics from his official Facebook page in June 2021, city officials told WTTW News.
That means the city will cover more than half of the cost of ending the lengthy litigation, even though U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman dismissed the claims against the city brought by James Suh, Steve Held, Pete Czosnyka, Peter Barash, Adam Vavrick and Dominick Maino in October 2021.
The city’s decision to nevertheless cover 55% of the settlement cost means Gardiner will pay just $70,000 to resolve claims he violated the free speech rights of Chicagoans.
Kristen Cabanban, a spokesperson for the city’s Law Department, said the city agreed to use taxpayer dollars to resolve the lawsuit “to stem the costs of further litigation and foreclose any future claims against it including a potential appeal.”
It is highly unusual for the city to agree to use taxpayer money to resolve a case in which it is not a defendant.
That decision does not require the approval of the Chicago City Council, which must approve all settlements of more than $100,000.
The six plaintiffs will each get $4,000, with the remaining $133,500 covering their legal fees, according to a copy of the settlement agreement obtained by WTTW News.
Czosnyka, the lead plaintiff in the case, said he was deeply confused by the city’s decision.
“Why would the city expend taxpayer dollars on a legal settlement in a case they have been excused from?” Czosnyka said. “Is this unnecessary contribution to Alderman Gardiner a form of income for him?”
Reached by text message, Gardiner declined to answer a question from WTTW News about whether it was appropriate to use taxpayer money to resolve this lawsuit.
Instead, Gardiner resent a previous statement he blocked the six people “due to doxxing and the nature of harassing comments” in keeping with advice from the Chicago Board of Ethics. Doxxing is the publication of personally identifying information on the internet with malicious intent.
Johnson Coleman ruled in September 2023 that the evidence showing Gardiner violated the First Amendment was overwhelming and ruled for the plaintiffs without a trial, leaving the question of damages the only question to be resolved.
“The record is clear that Gardiner engaged in both content-based and speaker-based restrictions on his Facebook page,” Johnson Coleman ruled. “He deleted and hid comments from disfavored constituents voicing opposing political beliefs and even went as far as to block some of those constituents. The Court thus finds Gardiner in violation of the First Amendment.”
Johnson Coleman’s ruling upheld a 2019 advisory opinion issued by the Chicago Board of Ethics that warned members of the City Council who use social media to communicate with constituents and city residents that they should not block people from following their accounts or delete comments critical of them or their positions.
The judge’s ruling dismissed Gardiner’s argument that he had the power to moderate his Facebook page as he saw fit by deleting comments he considered “harassing,” “threatening,” “doxing” or “inciting” and by blocking users after receiving complaints.
Johnson Coleman determined that Gardiner had been put on notice that he was not permitted to block critics from his Facebook page, establishing that he knew he was violating their constitutional rights.
The judge also permanently blocked Gardiner from blocking any users from his Facebook page or hiding or deleting any posts until he develops a clear policy that complies with the First Amendment. That injunction was incorporated into the settlement agreement, which included no admission of wrongdoing by Gardiner, records show.
Before a trial to determine damages could take place, the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out the framework, set by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, used by Johnson Coleman to reach her decision.
Contact Heather Cherone: @HeatherCherone | (773) 569-1863 | [email protected]
