Batistatos files tort claim seeking $2.5M
Former head of Lake County’s tourism board claims age discrimination behind his removal
The former head of Lake County’s tourism board has filed a notice with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of an intent to sue the entity and several of its board members for $2.5 million for age discrimination regarding his removal.
Speros Batistatos, former president and CEO of the South Shore Convention and Visitors Authority, alleges in a letter announcing his intent to sue that the SSCVA board violated the law in the handling of his contract renegotiations due to his age — 58 — and misspent Payroll Protection Plan funds in violation of the CARES Act.
Notices of intent to sue were also sent to Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr. and attorney Kevin Smith for $2.5 million for defamation for their actions around the time Batistatos was relieved of his duties by the board.
In the notice, Batistatos claims the SSCVA board engaged and outside attorney to renegotiate his contract, which expires Dec. 31, as well as formed a compensation committee to assist in the renegotiation. The notice of intent was directed to the SSCVA and to several individual board members including Andy Qunell, board chairman; Matt Schuffert, Brent Brashier, Tom Dabertin and Matt Maloney.
The notice alleges many emails were sent between board members and meetings were conducted in January and May regarding the negotiations. He continues he informed the compensation committee and select board members he wanted to work four and half more years before retiring.
“Several board members told me during that time that I was paid too much for my job, even though I led and built the SSCVA into the organization it is today,” Batistatos wrote.
After May, negotiations stopped, he continued in the complaint.
Batistatos was relieved of his duties by the board July 15. He alleges compensation that he was entitled to receive under his contract was not paid. The board also refused to port his personal phone number to him as contemplated by the contract, according to the complaint.
“Other SSCVA employees more than 10 years younger than me and who quit their employment received the compensation I was deprived of and they were allowed to port their phone numbers as well,” Batistatos wrote.
Batistatos continues to be paid his salary, but the board has made clear he is no under consideration to continue as president and CEO after Dec. 31.
“I believe that I have been relieved of my employment responsibilities, deprived of compensation and my phone number in breach of my employment contract, and my employment contract is not being renewed, all because of my age, 58, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended,” he wrote in the discrimination charge.
He also alleges he has been retaliated against for complaining about discrimination in violation of the ADEA, as amended.
The letter of intent to sue also alleges the SSCVA board misspent PPP funds when it disbursed “no strings attached” expenditures of $25,000 each to 15 different municipalities in violation of the CARES Act. The law required 60% of PPP funds to be used for payroll and the remaining 40% for overhead. The SSCVA received about $388,500 in PPP funds. The board has disputed this claim.
Qunell did not immediately return a request for comment Friday. Board members Schuffert and Brashier declined to comment on the matter due to pending litigation. Dabertin and Maloney could not immediately be reached Friday.
“I’ve looked it over. I can’t comment on ongoing litigation,” Brashier said.
In the notice of intent sent to McDermott, Batistatos alleges McDermott conspired and made a backdoor deal with the SSCVA board to dismiss a pending lawsuit against the SSCVA if Payroll Protection Plan funds were given out to aid his and other municipalities.
“Further, Mr. McDermott also stated he would dismiss the lawsuit if Mr. Batistatos were terminated from his position at the SSCVA. Mr. McDermott made numerous defamatory statements and erupted in tirades against Mr. Batistatos on Mr. McDermott’s podcast with Kevin Smith entitled Left of Center Podcast,” according to the document.
The document goes on to say McDermott complained about Batistatos salary compared to his own, disparaged Batistatos in his job duties and falsely accused him of spending taxpayer money as he sees fit, among other complaints.
On Friday, McDermott called the allegations made in the letter of intent to sue ridiculous. Smith declined to comment.
McDermott said there was litigation between the SSCVA and city because of Batistatos doing something illegal procedurally by appointing members to the board, but it had nothing to do with Batistatos’ job. He said the courts ultimately found in the city’s favor. The lawsuit was two-pronged, he said, including the complaint that Batistatos and the SSCVA broke Indiana code when they appointed people to the board; the second was a constitutional issue that could take a couple years to litigate.
McDermott said the city had already been victorious on the first count and was litigating the constitutional issue when Batistatos was fired. At that time, McDermott said, the city made the evaluation to decide whether or not continue the fight with the SSCVA’s new leadership.
“We made the decision that things changed materially and we didn’t need to proceed. I had not clue Speros was going to get fired. I was just as dumbfounded and shocked as anybody,” McDermott said.,
He said the filing this week is a notice of intent and it does not mean a suit will be filed. He said if a suit ultimately is filed against him it would be frivolous. McDermott said he has a right as a citizen and elected official to question how a public official spends more than $50 million in taxpayer dollars and has a right to criticize how that money is spent if he disagrees.
“Public officials are held to a higher standard. He is part of the government,” McDermott said. “I was legitimately concerned with a wasteful CEO pending thousands on frivolous things. That’s my right.”
He said if people in positions like that are allowed to sue their critics it would be a violation of their constitutional rights.