After months of extensions and delays, DuSable Black History Museum and Education President Perri Irmer on May 15 filed her response to a whistleblower lawsuit that alleges she and the Black institution misused funds intended for the education and programs department.
The plaintiff in that lawsuit, Dr Kim Dulaney, alleges Irmer retaliated against her when Dulaney was terminated in October after reporting allegations to several government agencies, including the Chicago Park District, and the offices of Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul.
Though Irmer and the DuSable Museum are defendants in the lawsuit, they are represented by different attorneys. Irmer is represented by Attorney Sean Herring of the downtown Chicago law firm of Jackson Lewis, PC. Attorney Katherine Rodosky represents the DuSable Museum.
In her 15-page response, Irmer’s attorney asks Judge James Hanlon to dismiss the lawsuit. Her attorney argues that Dulaney does not meet the standards of the Illinois Whistleblower Act because she did not refuse to participate when she was allegedly asked to do things that violate the law.
In their motion to dismiss, Irmer’s attorney cite Section 20 of the Illinois Whistleblower Act to support their argument.
“Consequently, to state a claim under Section 20, Plaintiff must sufficiently allege that: 1) she refuses to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of a state and federal law, rule or regulation, and 2) her employer retaliated against her because of the refusal.
“Plaintiff’s Section 20 claims fail at the outset because Plaintiff does not meaningfully allege in her complaint that she refused to participate in any activity at all, much less an unlawful one.”
Before she was terminated due to “restructuring,” Dulaney served as vice president of education and programs. She
alleges in her whistleblower lawsuit that she was asked to “falsify reporting” on grants by Irmer and board member Wendy Williams and that she refused to do so.
To support her allegations that Irmer and the DuSable misappropriated grant funds, Dulaney cites a $5,000 grant her department received from the University of Chicago. Dulaney said she only used $600 to $700 of the money for Juneteenth’s children’s programming. Delaney said she doesn’t know where the rest of the funds went after she pressed Irmer about it.
Dulaney also alleges in her whistleblower lawsuit that Irmer and the museum allowed alcohol to be sold on the premises without a liquor license.
In Irmer’s motion to dismiss Dulaney’s lawsuit, her attorney argue that allegation “lacks the factual and legal details necessary to state a claim…Nor does she allege basic facts that would permit a meaningful analysis of her allegation, such as the specific event at issue, the date on which it occurred, or even the jurisdiction in which it was held. “
Irmer’s attorney present similar arguments about Dulaney’s allegations of misappropriation of funds.
“Plaintiff vaguely references unspecified “federal laws for not-for profit corporations…and alludes to potential violations of the Illinois Grant and Transparency Act without citing any specific provision therein.”
Irmer’s motion to dismiss contrasts with the DuSable Museum’s response to the Dulaney’s lawsuit. In their 24-page response filed earlier this year, the museum denied nearly all Dulaney’s allegations and, in some instances, stated the museum lacked sufficient knowledge to confirm claims presented in Dulaney’s complaint.
Neither the museum’s nor Irmer’s responses include findings from an internal investigation conducted by prominent attorney Patricia Holmes. In February, Attorney Rodosky told Judge Hanlon the museum needed additional time to respond to Dulaney’s lawsuit because Holmes was conducting an internal review of the allegations.