Subscribe Via Email

Copyright 2025 All Rights Reserved.

Subscribe Via Email

Subscribe Via Email

login

October 13, 2025

Orland Park Library’s Bridget Bittman’s lawsuit update – dismissal motion granted –

By John Kraft & Kirk Allen

On June 1, 2015

Orland Park, IL. (ECWd) –

This is urgent and breaking news. The judge granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety.
 .
All the counts asked to dismiss were granted, so her lawsuit is eviscerated.  Responses are due on the remaining counts by June 15th.
  .
Here are the counts that were dismissed today:
  .
* The computer hacking counts (where she claimed Kevin’s SassyPlants page was computer hacking under federal Computer Hacking law). This dismissed the claim that they violated Facebook’s terms of service by making the fake SassyPlants facebook page using images of Bittman.
 .
* The assault claim Bittman made against Kevin (tossed out as bogus) – did not meet the threshold as no verbal threats or menacing gestures were made.
 .
* The defamation and false light claims she made against Kevin for SassyPlants (tossed out as ridiculous)
 .
* Bittman’s claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (tossed out as ridiculous)
 .
* Bittman’s claim for injunctive relief (tossed out because she had no right to ask for that as a count)
 . 
The judge wiped out all of this with prejudice, which means she cannot bring any of these claims again.
  .
Defendants now have to file a response to her other remaining claims and hopefully defeat them as well.
 .
.
The Only Remaining Counts
 . 

Count 3: violation of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (for Bittman’s bogus claim that SassyPlants intercepted messages meant for Bittman, which it didn’t do)

Count 4: violation of the Copyright Act (for Sassy Plants, where Bittman has improperly claimed a copyright on a picture of herself in a Green Dress that she posted to the Internet)

Counts 5-6: defamation per se and false light (for the July 8 video of Bittman barreling towards Kevin in front of the Orland Park Civic Center, which Officer Jodi Schmidt said was disorderly conduct on 7/8/14)

Counts 8-9: defamation per se and false light (for the 5/18/2014 Fans of Megan Fox post mentioning false police complaints made by OPPL staff, the 6/12/2014 picture of Bittman with the champagne bottle, and Kleinman’s “gay hater” statement where he called Bittman out for homophobia that Kleinman believes Bittman has shown)

[gview file=”https://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/2015-06-01-Judge-grants-order-dismiss-Bittman.pdf”]
Bittman January-9 weird scrunch

SHARE THIS

RELATED

71 Responses

  1. Why did Adam Andrzejewski/For the Good of Illinios settle out of court with Ms. Bittman? One must wonder if at least one leg of this lawsuit has some merit.

    1. I cannot speak for him, but sometimes people simply settle because they are tired of messing with it. One of the objectives of a SLAPP – wear people down… When the other counts get heard by the court is when we will find out if anything “had merit”, which I do not believe it has.

      1. Because he was wrong. He paid her thousands of dollars less than he would have had this gone to trial.

        1. You can certainly have an opinion – but maybe we should wait until the trial is over to see if anybody is declared to be wrong.

        2. Mitch — Where are you getting information that Adam paid Brittman any money? I read that he paid her nothing and was going to hit her with counterclaims so the two parties agreed to settle so that he would not sue her for counterclaims. Can you cite anything that contradicts that?

    2. blount — I read that Adam/For the Good were going to hit Brittman with counterclaims and that the two parties agreed to settle before counterclaims were served on her. No money changed hands. Her suit was effectively withdrawn and she was spared being sued with counterclaims in this deal.

    3. @blount and @Mitch both using double standards, of course. The American Library Association itself appeared before Bridget Bittman and the Orland Park Public Library and said in the context of sexually harassed librarians who sued and won huge settlements, “They weren’t forced to pay any money. Um, the settlement was uh reached with a mutual agreement with the librarians involved to get rid of the lawsuit….” http://safelibraries.blogspot.com/2014/12/sexual-harassment-of-librarians.html

      “To get rid of the lawsuit.”

      Bingo.

  2. Great news! It would have been the cherry on top if the posts to the Sassy Plants FB page were made using a computer in the OPPL. Free access to the Internet for everyone!

  3. Glad to hear it. What a stupid waste of everyone’s time! I notice the judge retired from the bench at the end of the opinion. LOL

    1. It is truly bizarre that a long-serving federal judge (who was appointed by no less than Ronald Reagan) had as his very last case of his career a case involving something called “Sassy Plants”, full of pictures of hunky gay guys and flowers around Chicago. No doubt every judge remembers his first case ever and his final case, with a handful of cases in between. This judge has something called “Sassy Plants” as part of the memory of his very last SLAPP case. That story will be told on the golf course for years to come no doubt.

  4. Several counts remain unaddressed yet you claim it is dismissed in its entirety lol

    1. Wow Mitch, you are reinforcing my belief that you simply cannot read.
      Unless you do not know what “motion” means?

    2. Mitch be trippin! He don’t know what a motion is. Maybe he’s a student…or one of that crazy lady’s lawyers that think “sassiness guaranteed” is defamation (they don’t seem to bright neither!)

        1. @Mitch: Kevin/Megan made a motion to dismiss many but not all counts of the amended complaint. The judge granted that in its entirety. It was a complete and title victory for Kevin/Megan, and a major loss for the American Library Association. Yes, some counts remain, but Kevin/Megan did not ask for them to be dismissed. But you can read between the lines when in the last two sentences the judge said he was retiring that very day and he urged the parties to settle.

          1. This was a huge loss for the Mudd Law firm. Brittman’s complaint was poorly written and was wrong on the law on every point. It was really amateur hour work. Brittman should be asking herself if she made a wise decision hiring Mudd. This case is being followed by the legal community and other attorneys are laughing at the Mudd firm.

    1. I am curious what the path forward here looks like for Bittman. There does not appear to be any way for her to prevail, so going forward knowing she cannot prevail just underscores how this is a SLAPP suit. I have read her complaint several times and she states no damages whatsoever. She also claims to have a flower arranging business but when you search the State of Illinois’ business records, there is no record of her having any business. There is also no explanation for how she claims the SassyPlants humor page allegedly “intercepted” messages for her business. What’s not noted by Illinois Leaks is that Bittman is the granddaughter of Dorothy Comisky-Rigney, who used to own the Chicago White Sox. It appears that Bittman is an entitled soul who believes that she can lash out at people who criticize her despite the fact that she chose to be a public employee who has a very highly paid public salary. This case is a lesson for when that sense of entitlement hits up against reality. It is likely that this case will end with Bittman having to pay the attorneys’ fees for all those she targeted and that she will also have to pay damages to them for putting them through this. Another question will be whether her attorneys face disciplinary action of their own for filing this bogus lawsuit. Didn’t they have a duty to tell Bittman NO when she wanted to do this to these people? Can lawyers be disciplined in Illinois for filing lawsuits where they have no hope of success but file them anyway just to cost the defendants a fortune to defend themselves?

        1. I’m sure the defendants are laughing tonight. Excellent decision by the judge. The rest of the counts should call as well. They are all frivolous and cannot be defended. This woman has lied to the public through the press over and over, has made a very public gay slur, has embarrassed herself and the library, and has treated a position of public trust with utter disdain. I can’t think of anyone who deserves this more!

  6. It’s a shame that public officials feel empowered to file such frivolous lawsuits. Reform is needed.

  7. Who let this woman file this lawsuit? What kind of lawyers would do this? I just read this and laughed all the way through. This woman sued over “Sassiness guaranteed?” Really? I find this hard to believe. How did it even get in front of a judge? It’s ludicrous. I’m sure the rest of it will not hold up either. I can’t believe she wasted the people’s time with this nonsense. Don’t federal judges have actual important cases to work on? Imagine a judge having to rule on something called Sassy Plants. O my word. I just can’t.

  8. One of the hallmarks of a SLAPP suit is where a bunch of bogus counts are filed against critics of public bodies, with the plaintiff never intending them to get to the fact-finding stage. Here, it certainly does appear that Bridget Bittman filed a bunch of counts against these people knowing they would never survive a motion to dismiss. Part of a SLAPP suit is just to drain the target’s resources and make them have to respond to a bunch of garbage and defend themselves from false charges. This is an important case to watch because other public employees in Illinois are looking to see if they can get away with doing things like this. if there are no consequences for Bittman doing what she did to these people then other public employees may feel that they, too, can file SLAPP suits without consequence. The community is best served if Bittman herself is sued for malicious prosecution when all of this is over, as a disincentive to public employees to try her tactic for themselves.

    1. @Daniel Varseti, there is yet another, hidden angle here. The American Library Association [ALA]. In my opinion, there is zero chance any individual would bring this SLAPP unless he or she was independently wealthy and truly mean spirited. I think ALA is behind this SLAPP, encouraging it, funding it, providing the mean spirit. And I know ALA is not only helping but is leading the effort to destroy exculpatory evidence, evidence that not only proves Bridget’s homophobia, but also ALA’s.

      As you said, “This is an important case to watch because other public employees in Illinois are looking to see if they can get away with doing things like this.” ALA is watching too. ALA will be funding case after case if it gets away with funding this one.

      You know want else tells me ALA is behind all this? Besides my being ALA’s top critic, that is. It’s that no one in their right mind would bring a defamation suit claiming someone was defaming them by publishing proof that they made homophobic statements. “Hey, I’m a homophobe, and this guy just reported on me being a homophobe, so he just defamed me!” That seems too ridiculous for an individual to make that claim. But it totally makes sense if it’s ALA doing it. ALA cares zero for Bridget Bittman and will step on her five ways to Sunday to get to me. I could care less how Bridget looks for bringing such a ridiculous claim. ALA is just itching for any excuse to silence me, and I guess Bridget went along for the ride in an effort to silence Kevin and Megan. So I think ALA is behind encouraging this ridiculous lawsuit.

      Further, if Bittman has to pay big money due to this being a SLAPP, I feel ALA will provide that funding to her. We already know the library itself changed its policy to indemnify Bridget. They are all working this SLAPP together.

      1. “I could care less how Bridget looks for bringing such a ridiculous claim.” That is a typo by me, sorry. It should have said, “It could care less how Bridget looks for bringing such a ridiculous claim.”

      2. Well, from the beginning the rumor has always been that Bridget would be working at the ALA in the Office of Intellectual Freedom when all this was done. At the ALA conference in Chicago last January, Bridget attended events and people were saying that she would be working at the ALA as her next step. The vibe was that she would be teaching other libraries how to use lawsuits like this as a weapon against critics. The ALA has a long history of giving jobs to people who toe the ALA’s line at the local level. The reward for going against the community’s wants is to land a big job at the ALA after doing damage to the community. If that indeed happens, then it certainly would prove your theory was correct that the ALA was behind this lawsuit all along. I notice that on her GoFundMe page the majority of donors to her lawsuit fund are ALA members or library employees. That speaks volumes.

      3. Kind of going off the deep end Dan. If that is you writing Dan. Its usually Kevin that imagines conspiracies under every rock.

        Perhaps someone with maturity should counsel Megan and Kevin that their arguments against the OPPL could carry more water if they didn’t engage in cheap shots and puppet videos. And there you are egging them on, while the high ground slowly erodes around you. Someone who bills himself as a leading expert in the fight against porn in libraries should at least be aware of the company he keeps. And by not giving them some sage advice you have made your bed with two people who make you look pretty foolish.

        1. blount — Megan and Kevin accomplished a great deal with the OPPL. It’s funny when people like you use the Alinsky tactic of criticizing their approach. Let’s review what they have achieved:

          * they received a $55,000 settlement from the OPPL for violations of the Open Meeting Act and FOIA statute that the OPPL committed

          * they had the computers removed that men were masturbating on in the OPPL

          * they forced Diane Jennings (Trustee) to admit publicly that child porn had been accessed in the OPPL and police were not called

          * they forced Diane Jennings to admit publicly that she used anti-gay slurs

          * they exposed the fact that women who worked at the OPPL were being told that they should quit their jobs if they did not like being sexually harassed and encouraged one of the women to come forward and confront the board in person

          * they got Saturday Night Live to mock the OPPL on television for allowing men to watch porn in that library

          * they exposed wasteful spending at the OPPL on lavish meals and jewelry purchases that caused the wasteful spending to stop

          * they forced the OPPL to remove policies they had in place that violated the Open Meetings Act

          * they forced the OPPL to produce documents they had been refusing to produce

          * they compelled the OPPL to rearrange its computer area so that all screens now face the Help Desk and the ability for guys to sit there and masturbate has been removed

          * they caused new policies to be put in place at the OPPL that limit the time allowed on a computer (which ended the practice of guys hanging out there all day to masturbate)

          * they forced the OPPL to stop handing out anonymous codes to get on the Internet as long as someone wanted and instead the OPPL now requires IDs to use a computer (which is a huge disincentive that makes it much less likely that people will do illegal things on those computers)

          * they compelled the OPPL to change its policy and stop sending women with children up to the adult computer area if they wanted to use a computer; now families are allowed to use a computer together in a safe area

          * they caused two bad board members not to run for re-election and one bad board member to retire

          * they forced the OPPL to stop paying for staff lunches out at fancy restaurants or for the library director’s coffee and treats from Corner Bakery (which she had been billing to taxpayers)

          That’s a hefty list of accomplishments. On top of that, the OPPL is now and forever known nationally as the library that had to pay out $55,000 because it allowed porn to be accessed there and it is also known as the library where child porn was accessed but police were not called. This has caused other libraries in Illinois and nationally to look at what they have been doing and bring themselves in line with the law, lest they be sued like the OPPL was sued for violations of the OMA and FOIA statute.

          The OPPL is also known as the library that squandered $450,0000 total in its fools’ quest to fight document production and to keep porn accessible. The OPPL is a cautionary tale that other libraries are looking at as an example of how NOT to behave.

          You can armchair-critic Megan and Kevin’s tactics all you want, but the Orland Park Public Library is now a safer place for children and families because of the work they put into cleaning that place up. If not for them, that library would still have men masturbating in it and stalking/harassing women and children the way that place had been operated for years and years before Megan and Kevin cleaned it up.