Orland Lawsuit Against Former Mayor Will Proceed, Village Wants Documents Back

ORLAND PARK, IL — A lawsuit brought by the Village of Orland Park against former Mayor Keith Pekau will proceed, with the Village on Wednesday refuting Pekau's claims that the court had ruled to dismiss most of it.

On Chicago news stations and via his social media Tuesday, Pekau touted that a Cook County Circuit Court Judge had dismissed six of seven counts against him in the lawsuit—a statement the Village on Wednesday disputed.

Judge Caroline Kate Moreland on Dec. 12 denied Pekau's motion to dismiss, court documents show. Moreland also ruled that the Village's claims regarding Pekau's keeping and use of non-public Village records were legally sufficient to move forward.

Pekau on Tuesday decried the lawsuit, telling Fox 32 Chicago it, "was never about protecting residents.

"It was about silencing me for telling the truth," Pekau told Fox 32 Chicago in a live interview. "The Court’s ruling confirms what I’ve said all along—this lawsuit was a political weapon funded by taxpayers. The Village lost, and the people of Orland Park paid the price."

Mayor Jim Dodge on Wednesday spoke about the latest developments.

"Despite his protestations, this has always been about protection of Village of Orland Park confidential information," Dodge said. "Nothing more, nothing less."

Fox 32 Chicago aired the interview with Pekau outlining his victory, then later issued a correction. A second news station aired a similar story, but abruptly pulled it.

| RELATED: Village Wants Restraining Order Against Ex-Mayor Pekau To Be Permanent |

"Former Mayor Keith Pekau’s recent remarks misrepresent the court’s ruling in the Village’s ongoing lawsuit," the Village's attorneys said Tuesday. "The case was not dismissed, and the Village did not suffer a legal setback. The court denied Mr. Pekau’s motion to dismiss, and the Village’s primary claim remains active."

See the judge's order below.

Moreland struck two counts by the Village: a request for injunctive relief, and a ban that would prohibit Pekau from disclosing confidential or privileged information. The latter was struck because the Village had not produced enough facts to justify a prior restraint on speech. The Village's attorneys said it was dismissed on a technicality, and that the Village is expected to re-plead this count.

She allowed the Village's request for a declaratory judgment over whether Pekau is allowed to keep or use non-public Village records to move forward in the court.

Pekau had also asked that that judge strike references to his "impermissible" retention of Village records, saying that no law forbids him to keep the documents or records, or compels that he return or destroy them.

In her ruling, Moreland states that Illinois Municipal Code requires that “Within 5 days after written notification and request, a person who has been an officer of a municipality shall deliver to the successor in office all property, books, and effects in the former officer’s possession, belonging to the municipality."

Village code, the ruling adds, states that a Village official cannot obtain or use Village records, documents, communications, or other written or electronic records of the Village that are not publicly available to further theirs or someone else's private interests.

Pekau argued that those provisions do not prohibit him from keeping copies of the documents after returning the originals to his successor. Moreland said both the Illinois and Village municipal codes can be intepreted that he is not allowed to keep the documents, records or confidential information. Pekau's request to strike those references was denied.

"Contrary to Mr. Pekau’s statements, the court has not:

• Rejected the Village’s allegations about improper retention of confidential records.
• Found the Village acted unlawfully or politically.
• Eliminated free speech protections.

"The Village’s claims were deemed legally sufficient to proceed by the court. This case is about safeguarding confidential records—not restricting lawful speech. This matter remains before the court, and the Village will continue to pursue it through proper legal channels."

Village of Orland Park attorneys

A preliminary injunction hearing set for Jan. 20 still stands, Moreland said.

The Dec. 12 order is the latest in the legal sparring between Pekau and the current administration.

Amid an emergency lawsuit filed by the Village of Orland Park, Moreland in August issued a temporary restraining order against Pekau, ordering him to immediately remove his publication of the Village’s confidential information he received access to while in office, and to cease publishing or disseminating any additional non-public confidential information related to the Village of Orland Park.

Pekau has been enjoined from disclosing the Village's confidential information since the original order was entered in August, and remains enjoined, the Village's attorneys said.

The Village said earlier this month it was continuing its legal efforts to make the restraining order permanent.

The suit was filed in response, the Village said, to Pekau's use of a blog and social media posts to disclose "sensitive internal documents and details concerning ongoing litigation" involving the Village, and "non-public information related to Village employees," the Village said.

The Village alleges that Pekau, who lost his bid for re-election in April 2025, published blog and social media posts disclosing sensitive internal documents, details related to ongoing litigation involving the Village, and non-public information related to Village employees.

"It is the Village’s position that Mr. Pekau’s conduct violated privacy laws and risked undermining the Village’s position in active litigation, potentially exposing taxpayers to increased liability and financial harm," the Village's statement reads. "Prior to filing suit, the Village requested that Mr. Pekau voluntarily remove the confidential information, but he declined to do so."

During ongoing court proceedings, attorneys for the Village argued that Pekau’s publication of the Village’s confidential information violated his oath of office, provisions of the Village Code prohibiting current and former officials from disclosing confidential Village information, and requirements of the Illinois Municipal Code mandating that outgoing officials turn over all Village records to their successors. The attorneys reiterated that while the Village is committed to transparency, Illinois law permits municipalities to keep certain limited categories of information confidential for legally defined purposes.

As the Village’s request for a permanent injunction against Pekau continues to be litigated in circuit court, the temporary restraining order remains in effect. The order prohibits Pekau from posting, sharing or discussing any confidential Village communications, including legal memoranda, settlement discussions, personnel matters, and internal emails protected by attorney-client privilege.

The Village continues in its efforts to recover confidential Village documents that remain in Pekau’s possession, officials said in a statement.