Deal reached in First Amendment -Facebook lawsuit against Ald. Gardiner, as city agrees to pay some costs

by BRIAN NADIG

A settlement in a federal lawsuit accusing Alderman James Gardiner (45th) of violating the First Amendment rights of residents because he restricted their access to his aldermanic Facebook page demonstrates the sometimes heated rhetoric on social media and sheds light on the claim that former mayor Lori Lightfoot had a reported “grudge” against Gardiner which led to the city’s initial refusal to indemnify him in the case.

Former corporation counsel Mark Flessner reportedly told Gardiner in an April 24, 2024, e-mail that Lightfoot had a “grudge” for unknown reasons against the alderman and that based on Lightfoot’s instructions the Corporation Counsel Office would not indemnify him. Gardiner was a defendant in three lawsuits, two of which now have been settled.

Gardiner has agreed to settle the Facebook lawsuit for $157,500, with each of the six plaintiffs receiving $4,000 and their attorneys getting $133,500. Large amounts for attorney fees are not unusual in federal civil rights cases.

The plaintiffs in the case are Pete Czosnyka, Peter Barash, Adam Vavrick, Dominick Maino, Steve Held and James Suh, who has a separate pending lawsuit against Gardiner.

The city is expected to pay at least half of the settlement costs, as Mayor Johnson’s administration reportedly has agreed to step into the case after the mayor’s predecessor refused.

Gardiner said that Lightfoot’s administration treated him unfairly, arguing that the city’s Board of Ethics had advised that he could block some people on his Facebook page.

It is believed that the settlement is the largest ever in a case related to a public official’s regulation of a social media page, said plaintiffs’ attorney Adele Nicholas.

“Social media sites like Facebook provide the public a powerful tool to petition their elected officials and make their voices heard,” Nicholas said. “Elected officials can’t selectively ban people who disagree with them.”

The suit was filed in 2021 and at the time Lightfoot’s administration refused to pay for Gardiner’s defense in the case, and it reportedly was not until late in the settlement negotiations that the possibility of the city paying a portion came up. Prior to the lawsuit’s filing Lightfoot had called for the city’s Inspector General to investigate Gardiner after he made disparaging remarks about some constituents and others.

Meanwhile, Gardiner reportedly sent Lightfoot’s successor, Brandon Johnson, the following letter:

“After being made aware of this lawsuit, I sought legal advice and representation from the city due to the matters stemming from actions as a public official, and not actions taken in my personal life. Unfortunately, I was arbitrarily denied legal representation by Corporate Counsel based on personal animosity by then Mayor Lightfoot. Her decision to deny the city’s legal obligations to indemnify me has caused unnecessary financial and emotional harm to both my family and I. Enclosed in this packet are documents that showcase the injustice that has been carried out by the previous administration, and documents that prove I was acting in good faith after receiving guidance from the Board of Ethics. I am appealing to your sense of injustice because the city’s Law Department continues to deny my request for full indemnification.”

Gardiner reportedly provided copies of e-mails and text messages in which the Board of Ethics had advised him that he could block some people on his Facebook page. Some of the board correspondence was from before the filing of the lawsuit and other was from after the filing.

In a 2022 e-mail, board of ethics deputy director Lisa Eilers tells Gardiner that he can block one of the plaintiffs because of inappropriate remarks and said in a text that she agreed with Gardiner that some of the attacks against him and his wife on social media were unwarranted and defamatory.

In a 2020 e-mail, board executive director Steve Berlin appears to acknowledge some of the heated rhetoric on social media in the 45th Ward, writing that opposing political camps “could knife each other until none are left standing.”

Under the terms of the settlement, Gardiner does not admit to any wrongdoing.

“The settlement comes after U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman entered an injunction prohibiting Gardiner from engaging in “future content restriction, including blocking any users from his official Facebook page or deleting or hiding comments or posts on the page, until he develops a content moderation policy that comports with the First Amendment’s requirements,” according to Nicholas.

Gardiner issued the following statement after the settlement was reached:

“The fact remains that during my first month in office, my staff sought guidance from the executive director of the Board of Ethics (Steve Berlin).

My office was advised to block due to doxxing and nature of harassing comments by certain followers.

“The emails and text messages from the BOE speak for themselves. I am, and will continue to be, targeted by extremists because I refuse to come to my knees while fighting for working class Chicagoans.”

In one e-mail, the board did caution Gardiner that elected officials can be subject to harsh criticisms “no matter how misguided they are. … In one case a judge held calling an elected official a ‘Nazi’ on a social media page was a matter of opinion” and is thus protected speech.

Nicholas said that she finds it peculiar that the city apparently decided late into the settlement negotiations to cover a significant portion of the costs. The city had been dismissed as a plaintiff in the case early on, she said.

Gardiner should be responsible for paying the settlement given that his actions sparked the lawsuit and “ultimately he is” whether or not the city chips in, she said. The settlement specifies that Gardiner is responsible for paying the settlement, and it’s up to him decide where that money will come from, she said.

The amount of time the plaintiffs were blocked on Gardiner’s Facebook page, or had their comments deleted or hidden, varied from about a month or so to around a year, Nicholas said. None of them are currently blocked on the page, she said.

In a separate lawsuit, the city on 2023 paid $100,000 to a man who claimed Gardiner had him wrongly arrested in a case involving the alleged stealing of a city worker’s cell phone. A civilian oversight agency had cleared two officers of wrongdoing in the arrest.

 

Digital Edition No Pop-Ups

Weekly Digital Edition

Read every story. Skip every pop-up.

Get the full weekly edition delivered to your inbox — no interruptions, no waiting. Just local news the way it was meant to be read.

Only $19.50/year — less than 38¢ a week Subscribe Now

This is just part of today’s coverage. Get the full story - every article, every ad, every page. Subscribe now.

The Latest From Our Community

 





Photo by SumUp No Pop-Ups

Weekly Digital Edition

Read every story.
Skip every pop-up.

No pop-up ads — ever. Just stories, the way they were meant to be read

Full weekly edition delivered to your inbox every week — no waiting, no missing issues

Support local journalism and help keep our community connected

Only $19.50/year

That's less than 38¢ a week

Purchase Digital Subscription

Paypal

$19.50

/year

You can submit your payment via Paypal with a Credit Card. You DO NOT NEED TO HAVE A PAYPAL ACCOUNT.. Just click the “Paypal Subscribe” button below to iniate your secure payment! You will be directed to a Secure Paypal page in which you can pay with a Paypal account if you have one, or you can select "Pay with Debit or Credit Cardt" option below and process your payment via credit card.

Venmo

$19.50

/year

You can submit payment of $19.50 for a 1 year subscription to Nadig Newspapers' Venmo account using this link. Please include the email address in the comment/note section that you would like the digital subscription sent to.