Heidi Eckert focuses her practice in the area of labor and employment law and civil rights defense. She is actively involved in all aspects of litigation, and has arbitrated and mediated numerous matters, as well as tried numerous cases in both state and federal courts.

In her employment law practice, Ms. Eckert handles matters involving discrimination, harassment, disability and retaliation claims. She defends claims in both state and federal courts, as well as before governmental agencies, including the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Illinois Department of Human Rights and Human Rights Commission. She has also handled appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and has litigated employment discrimination disputes, employment contract disputes, and retaliatory discharge claims in federal and state courts.

In addition to litigating labor and employment matters, Ms. Eckert advises and counsels employers on such specific employee relations issues as discipline, discharge and reasonable accommodation of disabilities. She also assists her clients in developing and implementing processes consistent with their business objectives and applicable labor laws. Her clients include employers in both the public and private sectors.

Ms. Eckert also specializes in civil rights defense. In her civil rights practice, Ms. Eckert handles matters involving violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claims. A number of the matters involve the use of deadly force, excessive force, unlawful arrest and claims of wrongful prosecution. The majority of the claims are defended in federal court. A selection of Ms. Eckert’s representative cases includes the following:

• Successful defense in a jury trial that involved allegations of racial discrimination involving a Caucasian employee who was terminated from his position as a police officer with a predominantly African-American police department. Plaintiff filed suit against a city in Illinois and several city employees alleging Title VII violations; violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; and violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case proceeded to jury trial. Following the close of defendants' case, the jury deliberated for approximately 90 minutes prior to rendering a judgment in favor of all defendants.
• Ms. Eckert won a motion to dismiss on behalf of a corporation in a suit alleging Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violations; sex discrimination in the workplace pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e; and negligent infliction of emotional distress. In response, Ms. Eckert filed both a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient as a matter of law to state a claim against the corporation for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ms. Eckert also argued that plaintiff should be barred from pursing a Title VII claim as plaintiff failed to follow the proper procedures for filing a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Finally, Ms. Eckert argued that plaintiff’s claims were insufficient as a matter of law to state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Prior to ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss.
• Ms. Eckert was granted Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of a national hotel chain, in a suit alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. §2000(e). Specifically, plaintiff alleged that plaintiff was denied additional hours at work due to plaintiff’s race, Native American, and alleged plaintiff was retaliated against for filing a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Subsequent to the close of discovery, Ms. Eckert filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an adverse employment action and that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of either discrimination or retaliation. The Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment.
• Ms. Eckert was granted a Motion for Summary judgment on behalf of a national hotel chain in a case where plaintiff alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. §2000(e). Specifically, plaintiff alleged that plaintiff was reassigned from plaintiff’s job as a front desk clerk and laid off from this position with the hotel due to race. Subsequent to the close of discovery, Ms. Eckert filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an adverse employment action and that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of either discrimination. The Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment.
• Ms. Eckert defended the sheriff of a county in Illinois against a plaintiff seeking to recover damages allegedly sustained as a result of the death of plaintiff’s son following the sheriff’s alleged failure to provide timely and proper medical care. In response, Ms. Eckert filed a Motion to Dismiss, which was granted.
• Ms. Eckert was granted a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of her clients, an Illinois county et al., in a complaint alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims of willful and wanton actions stemming from plaintiff’s son’s suicide attempt at the county jail. As a result of the suicide attempt, the son is in a persistent vegetative state. Following extensive discovery in this case, Ms. Eckert filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the caselaw involving allegations of deliberate indifference and state law claims of willful and wanton actions requires a showing that the defendants knew and ignored the serious imminent threat of suicide by a detainee. Ms. Eckert also argued that none of the individual defendants had such knowledge, much less ignored a serious threat. Ms. Eckert also argued that the evidence demonstrated a long course of responsiveness to the son’s complaints and that none of the individual defendants recklessly or intentionally disregarded a known risk of suicide. The Court granted the Motion for Summary Judgment.
• Ms. Eckert successfully defended a county in Illinois et al., in a jury trial that involved a complaint alleging that the county’s sheriff’s department deputy employed excessive force during plaintiff's arrest, and that the deputy unreasonably entered the plaintiff’s home in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The case proceeded to jury trial. Following the close of defendants' case, the jury deliberated for approximately three hours prior to rendering a judgment in favor of all defendants.

Ms. Eckert joined Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP In April of 2002. She began her legal career in the St. Clair County State’s Attorney’s Office where she worked in the felony division. During her tenure with the St. Clair County State’s Attorney’s Office, Ms. Eckert successfully prosecuted numerous drug and non-violent felony cases.

Since 2006, Ms. Eckert has held an appointment as an Assistant State’s Attorney for Madison County, Illinois.

Ms. Eckert is a member of the Illinois State Bar Association, the St. Clair County Bar Association and the East St. Louis Bar Association. Ms. Eckert’s presentations include, “Laws Regulating Adult Entertainment,” at Hinshaw’s In-House Continuing Legal Education seminar, in Belleville, Illinois, March 2006.