Feeney v. Civil Serv. Bd. of the Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi.
| Citation | 443 Ill.Dec. 293,2020 IL App (1st) 190928,161 N.E.3d 945 |
| Decision Date | 22 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-19-0928,1-19-0928 |
| Parties | Anthony FEENEY, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. The CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF the METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO; John Kendall, Mazie Harris, and Donald Storino, in Their Capacities as Members of the Civil Service Board ; The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, a Municipal Corporation; and David St. Pierre, in His Capacity as Executive Director, Defendants (The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago and David St. Pierre, Defendants-Appellees and Cross-Appellants). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Gregory J. Bueche, of Naperville, for appellant.
Susan T. Morakalis, of Chicago, for appellees.
¶ 1 The plaintiff-appellant, Anthony Feeney, filed suit against, inter alia , his employer, defendant-appellee, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (District), as well as defendant the Civil Service Board of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (Board) on October 3, 2017, after he was suspended from his job as a pipefitter for a seven month period beginning in February 2017. His suspension stemmed from charges that he deceitfully took advantage of the District discount when purchasing paint from Southtown Paint and Wallpaper (Southtown) in Orland Park, Illinois.
¶ 2 The circuit court of Cook County found that the Board's decision to suspend Feeney was not against the manifest weight of the evidence but held that the Board exceeded its statutory authority in imposing an additional month of suspension following the date of its decision. Therefore, the court remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings.
¶ 3 On remand, the parties limited their dispute to the amount of back pay to which Feeney was entitled. The District argued that Feeney was entitled to $6822.29 because he was on vacation from August 9 (when the Board announced its decision) through August 22, while Feeney argued that he should be paid for this vacation time and was entitled to $10,022.07. The Board found Feeney entitled to the lesser amount, and Feeney again appealed to the circuit court.
¶ 4 On April 24, 2019, the circuit court found Feeney was entitled to the greater amount and specified that its order was now final and appealable. Feeney timely appealed from the circuit court's order and the District cross-appealed.
¶ 5 On appeal, Feeney argues that (1) the Board did not make sufficient findings of fact in its order, (2) the Board erred in concluding that his conduct was related to the requirements of service, and (3) he is entitled to remand to present additional evidence on the issue of mistaken identity. In its cross-appeal, the District argues that the Board did not exceed its authority in imposing a suspension beyond the date of its decision. For the following reasons, we vacate the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County and remand the case to the Board with directions.
¶ 7 Feeney is a pipefitter leadman for the District in its Stickney plant. In December 2017, the District began investigating Feeney's alleged use of an unauthorized discount on his personal purchases from Southtown in October and November 2016. Two months later, on February 2, 2017, the District suspended Feeney without pay for 30 days pending discharge in connection with its investigation. The District subsequently filed charges against Feeney before the Board alleging that Feeney identified himself as a District employee to Southtown employees in order to receive the District discount on his personal paint purchases and avoid paying sales tax. The District alleged that Feeney violated Administrative Procedure 10.27.0, Rules for Employee Conduct, section 3, intolerable offenses, paragraph e, which prohibits employees from "engaging in fraud, deceit, or intentionally providing false information or making misrepresentations * * * in the use or attempted use of various government-mandated or District-provided benefits." By law, Feeney's suspension was extended until the Board's decision was rendered. See 70 ILCS 2605/4.14 (West 2016).
¶ 8 The Board held a hearing on the charges in May and June 2017. At the hearing, several employees from Southtown testified, beginning with Matthew Maciasz, who rang up Feeney's purchase on October 18, 2016. Matthew Maciasz testified that Feeney came into the store that morning and purchased a gallon and two quarts of paint as well as some paintbrushes. Matthew Maciasz testified that he charged Feeney's purchase to the District's account because "that's what Feeney said it was for, that's the account to use." Feeney also gave Matthew Maciasz a purchase order number. Matthew Maciasz testified that Feeney left without paying. On cross-examination, Matthew Maciasz admitted that he did not ask Feeney for a badge or confirm that the purchase order number was connected to the District.
¶ 9 Matthew Offord, another Southtown employee, testified that he served Feeney on November 2. After preparing Feeney's paint, he asked Feeney if he had an account. Feeney replied that he was with the District and gave a purchase order number. While the sales receipt for the purchase indicates that the paint was sold to the District, Feeney paid for it on his own. On cross-examination, Offord explained that Southtown sold items to the District at a discount, and the District was not required to pay sales tax on its purchases. While Southtown also had discounts individual for painters who paid cash, the discount was not as great as the District's discount and individual painters were also responsible for paying sales tax.
¶ 10 Casey Maciasz served Feeney at Southtown on November 3. Feeney gave Casey his items and told Casey he was employed at the District. Despite this, Casey rang Feeney up as an individual painter and gave him the lesser cash discount. Feeney then paid and left the store.
¶ 11 Mary Ornoff1 , Southtown's office manager, also testified. According to Mary, when Feeney's October 18 purchase was made and charged to the District, an e-mail was automatically sent to the District. After receiving the e-mail, Kathryn Skrzypek, an account clerk for the District who also testified, noted that the purchase order number was incorrect and called Mary to tell her that it was not a District-authorized purchase and the District would not pay for it. Skrzypek testified that the same thing happened with Feeney's November 2 purchase, in that she received an e-mail notifying her of the charge. When Skrzypek called Mary again, Mary pulled up the credit card charge and discovered that Feeney made the purchase.
¶ 12 When Feeney returned to Southtown the afternoon of November 3, a Southtown employee informed Mary that Feeney was there, and Mary came out of her office to talk to him. She asked Feeney to pay the $104.96 outstanding invoice of October 18 that the District had refused to pay. Feeney initially maintained that he had already paid but ultimately made the requested payment. The payment of $104.96 that Feeney made still included the District's discount and did not include sales tax, although by that point Mary knew that he was not entitled to those benefits.
¶ 13 In January 2017, Tom Bolland Jr., a "very good customer" of Southtown, left a voicemail for Casey. In his voicemail, Bolland said that Feeney had mistakenly charged his purchases to the District, but he should have charged it to the Bolland account because Bolland was working on a painting project for Feeney. Casey told Mary about the voicemail, and Mary called Bolland's brother, Mike, as she had a better relationship with him. From that call, she got the impression that the Bollands wanted Southtown to say they made a mistake in giving Feeney the District discount, but Mary refused.
¶ 14 Finally, Robert Byrne, a senior human resources analyst for the District, testified on the District's behalf. Byrne interviewed Feeney in connection with the District's investigation. During that interview, Feeney maintained that he did not ask Southtown to charge the District for his purchases but only mentioned that he knew Mark Flynn, a painter for the District who also patronized Southtown. Feeney claimed that Matthew Maciasz2 "assumed" he worked for the District.
¶ 15 Byrne also testified that Feeney had previously been suspended pending discharge in January 2015. That suspension was the result of a failure to perform his supervisory duties by allowing District employees to have access to a room at the Stickney plant to watch television and sleep during work hours. Feeney and the District entered into a settlement agreement where Feeney admitted wrongdoing in exchange for a shorter suspension. Feeney also agreed to comply with the District's rules and regulations and "refrain from engaging in any conduct that is grounds for discipline and discharge."
¶ 16 After the District rested, Feeney called several painters for the District to testify on his behalf, beginning with Flynn. Flynn testified that he works in the Stickney plant with Feeney but in the paint shop. The District had a contract to buy paint from Southtown in 2014 and 2015 but not 2016.
¶ 17 Howard Meter and Ricardo Gilmore, painters for the District who worked in Calumet, also testified. Meter testified that he never went to Southtown to purchase paint for the District but only for personal projects. However, he and Gilmore went to Southtown in the spring of 2016 to obtain quotes for materials they needed for the District. Meter and Feeney bore some resemblance to each other.
¶ 18 Feeney finally testified on his own behalf. He testified that he had been a pipefitter leadman for the District at the Stickney plant for 23 years. He had also been going to Southtown for 25 years but did not know that the District had an account at Southtown. On October 16...
To continue reading
Request your trial