Failure to Conduct Background Check Allows Sexual Extortionist to Spread His Disease

According to the Illinois Employment Law Letter, a county is not responsible for an employee who tries to extort sexual favors in return for a job that does not exist. Felice Vanaria tried to do just that! He “created” a job within a Cook County hospital in the hopes of receiving sexual favors.

Vanaria has a history of sexual misdeeds stemming from 1998. While he was a probation officer, he was offering more lenient probation conditions to women in exchange for sexual favors. Once his employer became aware, he was immediately fired. A few years later, Vanaria became friends with the Cook County commissioner, who hired him without even completing a background check. Vanaria was now the new coordinator of continuing education at a hospital in Cook County. As a coordinator, he was responsible for many things, but creating jobs was not one of them!

In this position, he contacted a woman massage therapist for a job as a physical therapist. This job did not exist, and the woman was immediately offered the fake position. She did not possess the proper certification, but that did not stop Vanaria from getting his way. Vanaria told her if she wanted the job she would have to undress and give him a massage. She complied but later rejected the job offer because she felt uncomfortable with the previous encounter.

Vanaria was persistent and a few weeks later contacted her again about a “new” job that opened up. He said this job would pay even more money, but she would have to massage him again. The woman was now becoming suspicious, so she called the human resources department at the hospital to inquire about the position. Imagine her surprise when they told her that no such position existed and that they were not even hiring! The woman then called her local police department to have Vanaria arrested.

Vanaria pled guilty to official misconduct and bribery. Cook County was sued, but the court found the county was not responsible because the woman could not prove deliberate indifference. They also ruled that “courts should be wary of imposing municipal liability for conduct that ultimately rises only to the level of negligence.”