Orland Township Supervisor Paul O’Grady claims political rivals interfered with a caucus he ran through the Orland Township Together political party in December 2024 to select candidates to run for local office, violating his and others’ First Amendment rights.
O’Grady confirmed at a Township Board meeting he was suing the former township clerk in federal court for allegedly violating his civil rights during the campaign.
The lawsuit names former Orland Township Clerk Cindy Murray, the township, state. Sen. Michael Hastings, the village of Orland Hills, Orland Hills Mayor Kyle Hastings, Orland Hills Village Board member Kyle Hastings II, unnamed Orland Hills police officers and “as-yet unnamed co-conspirators,” as defendants, according to the complaint.
O’Grady filed the lawsuit in December 2025 with help of three people who ran alongside him on the Orland Township Together slate during the April 1, 2025 township election: Reem Odeh and former board members John Lynch and Patrick Feldner.
O’Grady stepped down as the Orland Township Together party chair in 2021, according to the Illinois State Board of Elections website.
During the July 20 township meeting, board members confirmed the township would pay a $5,000 insurance deductible to defend itself from the lawsuit. Board member Ken Duffy said the village had paid $17,000 in legal fees from the case.
Board member Frank Williams asked why O’Grady named Orland Township in the lawsuit, with O’Grady responding that he needed to sue the township because he was suing Murray in her official capacity as township clerk.
“I follow my lawyers’ advice,” the supervisor said.
Defendants in the lawsuit, including Orland Township, filed three separate motions to dismiss the case based on the plaintiffs failing to state a claim. U.S. District Court Judge Andrea R. Wood is considering those motions, with the next hearing in the case scheduled for 10 a.m. on Oct. 22 via phone.
The complaint states that in regards to the 2024 caucus, the defendants worked together to “intentionally interfere with and otherwise thwart Plaintiffs’ efforts to exercise their First Amendment rights in showing up to the caucus site, blocking the entrance, refusing to participate in the procedures and using a variety of threats and intimidation to thwart the caucus.”
The lawsuit also accuses the defendants of civil conspiracy and state violations including deprivation of constitutional rights, conspiracy to prevent voting, and willful and wanton conduct.
Attorney Burt Odelson, representing Orland Hills, Mayor Kyle Hastings, and Trustee Kyle Hastings II, said the lawsuit is politically motivated. Attorneys for the other defendants did not respond to requests for comment.
Odelson, of the Evergreen Park firm Odelson, Murphey, Frazier & McGrath, maintains the defendants did nothing wrong, as they “have a right as citizens to partake in a caucus,” he said. He believes Wood will dismiss the suit based on the motions filed by the defendants’ attorneys.
“Lawyers usually don’t make predictions like that, but this is so frivolous, it’s just beyond belief,” Odelson said.
More Top Picks Best Steel Toe Boots For Flat Feet
The Daily Southtown previously reported that Orland Park police told a group of about 40 residents to leave the caucus at Orland Chateau banquet hall, saying they were not invited to attend. At the time, state Sen. Michael Hastings, D-Frankfort, told the crowd he believed O’Grady and the Orland Township Together group were “circumventing the election law.”
The lawsuit accuses Hastings of defamation and portraying O’Grady in a false light based on his comments that were published in the Southtown.
Attorney for O’Grady and the other plaintiffs, Katie Montenegro of Chicago’s Loevy and Loevy firm, said police were called “once it was clear that the defendants and their mob kind of descended on the venue and were not interested in participating legally.”
“Police did eventually disperse the crowd that was intentionally interfering with the process,” Montenegro said.
She denied the lawsuit is political, saying “there’s no more important time in recent history than now to protect democracy.”
“And what is clear from what occurred in this case is that the principles of democracy were violated by the defendants.”