Adams v. Board of Fire and Police Com'rs of Village of Skokie
| Decision Date | 03 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-3562,85-3562 |
| Citation | 98 Ill.Dec. 606,144 Ill.App.3d 905,494 N.E.2d 728 |
| Parties | , 98 Ill.Dec. 606 Michael J. ADAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF the VILLAGE OF SKOKIE, Illinois and its members, E. Ralph Egloff, Seymour Layfer, Gilbert Jones, David Jones and John Mack; and Thomas Quillin, Chief of the Skokie Fire Department, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Thomas F. McGuire & Associates, Ltd., Long Grove, for plaintiff-appellant.
Harvey Schwartz, Corp. Counsel, Skokie, (Jeffrey D. Greenspan, Asst. Corp. Counsel, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiff, Michael J. Adams, appeals from the order of the circuit court of Cook County confirming the decision of defendant, the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of the Village of Skokie (the Board), to demote him from the rank of captain to the rank of lieutenant on the Village of Skokie Fire Department. Plaintiff contends that the sanction of demotion was arbitrary, unreasonable and unrelated to the requirements of the service. We affirm.
On January 16, 1985, chief Thomas Quillin of the Village of Skokie Fire Department (the Department) filed charges against plaintiff with the Board alleging violations of various departmental rules. Chief Quillin sought the demotion of plaintiff from captain to lieutenant, a fine and a period of suspension. At the hearing on April 9, 1985, the parties stipulated to the following facts:
Plaintiff admitted that his conduct violated the following rules and regulations of the Village of Skokie Fire Department:
"Rule 310.02 Standard of Conduct: Members and employees shall conduct their private and professional lives in such a manner as to avoid bringing the Department into disrepute.
Rule 310.04 Loyalty: Loyalty to the Department and to associates is an important factor in Departmental morale and efficiency. Members and employees shall maintain a loyalty to the Department and their associates as is consistent with the law and personal ethics.
Rule 380.72 Impartial Attitude: All members must remain completely impartial toward all persons coming to the attention of the Department. All citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Exhibiting partiality for or against a person because of race, creed, or influence is unfiremanlike conduct. Similarly, unwarranted interference in the private business of others when not in the interest of justice is unfiremanlike conduct."
The Board then heard testimony regarding the sanction to be imposed. Based on the stipulated facts the Board found plaintiff guilty as charged, and, finding no justification or excuse for his conduct, ordered plaintiff to be demoted to the rank of lieutenant. On administrative appeal, the circuit court of Cook County confirmed the Board's decision.
Plaintiff, as we have noted, contends that the sanction of demotion was arbitrary, unreasonable and unrelated to the requirements of the service. We disagree.
The facts in this case are undisputed. Plaintiff stipulated that he had obtained and photocopied certain portions of firefighter Peter Conrad's confidential personnel files and delivered them to firefighter Terry Gielow for use in a pending lawsuit between Gielow and Conrad arising from a fist fight at a Village of Skokie fire station. Plaintiff further stipulated that, in violation of the rules and regulations of the Village of Skokie Fire Department, his conduct brought the fire department into disrepute, breached the duty of loyalty which plaintiff owed to the Department and its members, reflected partiality and constituted unwarranted interference in the private business of others. Based on this conduct, the Board demoted plaintiff from captain to lieutenant.
In seeking judicial review of his demotion plaintiff urges us to adopt the "substantial shortcoming" standard which has been applied in discharge cases. Under this standard, "cause" for discharge by an administrative agency is "a substantial shortcoming which renders an employee's continuance in office in some way detrimental to the discipline and efficiency of the service and which law and sound public policy recognize as good cause for his no longer holding his position." (Brown v. Civil Service Com. (1985), 133 Ill.App.3d 35, 41, 88 Ill.Dec. 226, 478 N.E.2d 541.) Plaintiff, however, cites no demotion case in which this test has been adopted.
A demotion necessarily implies a continuation of service in some different capacity and not a termination. (Colaw v. University Civil Service Merit Board (1975), 37 Ill.App.3d 857, 867, 341 N.E.2d 719 (J. Barry, dissenting).) Since demotion represents a less serious sanction than discharge, we do not believe that the same test for reviewing the reasonableness of a discharge should govern review of a demotion. (See Lakin v. Gorris (1983), 113 Ill.App.3d 1034, 1039, 69 Ill.Dec. 755, 448 N.E.2d 215 ().) Indeed, the courts have intimated that demotion may be an appropriate sanction in circumstances that would not warrant discharge. See Basketfield v. Daniel (1979), 71 Ill.App.3d 877, 881, 28 Ill.Dec. 325, 390 N.E.2d 492; Fox v. Illinois Civil Service Com. (1978), 66 Ill.App.3d 381, 390, 23 Ill.Dec. 174, 383 N.E.2d 1201.
The question presented by this appeal is whether, in view of the circumstances presented, we can say that the Board, in deciding to demote plaintiff, acted unreasonably or arbitrarily or selected a type of discipline unrelated to the needs of the service. (Sutton v. Civil Service Com. (1982), 91 Ill.2d 404, 411, 63 Ill.Dec. 409, 438 N.E.2d 147; McDaniel v. Board of Trustees (1975), 28 Ill.App.3d 564, 328 N.E.2d 659.) In our judgment, it did not.
Plaintiff argues that demotion was an arbitrary penalty because two other employees of the fire department who had knowledge of plaintiff's conduct were less severely disciplined. Firefighter Terry Gielow, who received the confidential personnel files, was suspended from duty for one 24-hour period. Gielow, however, did not take the documents or copy them, and there was some evidence that he had found them stuck in his door. Captain William Serdar, who knew that Gielow had received the documents, was reprimanded in writing for failing to report a violation of departmental rules. Serdar advised Gielow to consult an attorney. He had no part in taking the documents or in giving them to Gielow. It is readily apparent that the conduct of Gielow and Serdar was far less culpable than that of plaintiff and did not require the same sanction.
Defendant next argues that the sanction of demotion was unreasonable because of the eight-month delay in filing charges, during which time plaintiff continued to function as captain/duty chief on various committees and had access to personnel files, and because of the personal rather than professional nature of the incident. An examination of the record, however, fails to indicate clearly who was responsible for the delay in filing charges, and, in the absence of an adequate record, we cannot assume that the delay was solely attributable to the Department. (See...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dahl v. Combined Ins. Co.
... ... different capacity and not a termination." Adams v. Bd. of Fire and Police Comm'rs of Village of ... ...
-
People v. Friedman
... ... She called the police and reported the incident. A few days later, she ... ...
-
O'Malley v. Board of Fire and Police Com'rs of City of Rolling Meadows
... ... Evans' attorney was neither the village attorney for Rolling Meadows, nor the village prosecutor, but was retained ... only where a police officer is discharged from the force, citing Adams v. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of the Village of Skokie (1986), ... ...