Foreman v. Civil Service Commission of City of Chicago
Decision Date | 20 September 1955 |
Docket Number | Gen. No. 46464 |
Citation | 129 N.E.2d 245,7 Ill.App.2d 122 |
Parties | William L. FOREMAN, Appellee, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF The CITY OF CHICAGO, Stephen E. Hurley, Albert W. Williams and Charles A. Lahey, as Civil Service Commissioners, Appellants. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
John J. Mortimer, Corp. Counsel, Chicago, L. Louis Karton, Head of Appeals & Review Division, Chicago, Arthur Magid, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Chicago, of counsel, for appellants.
Thaddeus B. Rowe & W. Elbert Washington, Chicago, Thaddeus B. Rowe, W. Elbert Washington, Chicago, of counsel, for appellee.
Plaintiff, a patrolman in the Department of Police in the City of Chicago, filed this action under the Administrative Review Act to review an order of the Civil Service Commission of the City of Chicago which had found him guilty of misconduct and ordered him discharged from his position. The trial court after a hearing entered an order reinstating the plaintiff to his position conditioned on plaintiff's filing a waiver of all back salary. As a part of this order the court found (1) that the findings of the Commission were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, but that the Civil Service Act gave the Commission power to punish or remove from the service for a period shorter than complete discharge from the service; (2) that the decision of the Commission was harsh and not warranted by the evidence; and (3) that a waiver by plaintiff of all back salary was sufficient punishment, under the evidence, for his failure to obey the rules and regulations of the Department of Police. The issues raised on this appeal by the Commission are based on these findings and the action fo the trial court. They are similar to those involved in the case of Nolting v. Civil Service Commission of the City of Chicago, 7 Ill.App.2d 147, 129 N.E.2d 236.
The relevant facts as revealed by the record are that on November 28 and 29, 1951, the plaintiff was assigned to a tour of duty that commenced at twelve o'clock midnight and ended at eight o'clock a. m. Prior to reporting for duty on the evening in question he went to a prize fight at the Chicago Stadium and remained there until about 9:30 p. m. When on duty he was required to call in hourly by telephone from post pull boxes. On the morning of November 29 he made his first, second and third calls, the last one being at 2:29 a. m., and made no further calls thereafter. He left his post shortly after his 2:29 a. m. call and went to his home. He remained there until about 5:15 a. m. when he was taken into custody by Sergeant Kelleher of the Seventh District Station.
Sergeant Kelleher testified that their station had received a call from a Mr. Trice who reported he was having difficulty with patrolman Foreman. He and a uniformed squad met Mr. Trice and went to plaintiff's home. They were admitted by plaintiff who was in uniform. Trice testified that he called the police because his wife, from whom he was separated, was at Foreman's home. Foreman's wife was visiting at her mother's home. Trice and his wife had been friends of the Foremans. He called his wife on the telephone at Foreman's home and asked to see her. He arrived at Foreman's home a few minutes after midnight. His wife told him that she was there to wash some of her clothes. He hold her she should not be there and asked her to go either to her father's home or to one of Mr. Trice's relatives in the city. Trice said Foreman came in at about two o'clock in the morning and entered into the discussion as to where Mrs. Trice should go. Mrs. Trice refused to go with her husband and insisted that plaintiff take her to the streetcar and that she would go to her home. There was an altercation between Trice and plaintiff when plaintiff sought to drive Mrs. Trice away in his car. Trice tried to prevent plaintiff from doing this by jumping on the hood of the car. Plaintiff pushed him off and drove away with Mrs. Trice. Trice then called the police station.
Sergeant Kelleher took plaintiff before Lieutenant Collins at the station to which plaintiff was assigned. The Lieutenant asked him why he was absent from his post. Plaintiff made no explanation at that time. In a written report made later he stated that the reason for leaving his post was to go home to eat. At the hearing before the Commission he stated for the first time that he had eaten some food that did not agree with him and his 'stomach was griping him.' He therefore took a laxative to relieve the condition before reporting for duty. While on duty he developed diarrhea and soiled his clothes, and for that reason he returned to his home to make a change and to have something to eat to relieve his stomach. He stated that before leaving his post at about 3:00 a. m., he did make a call to the station. He could not reach the sergeant who was in charge of the desk but left word for them to call him at home at 3:30.
The officer in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nolting v. Civil Service Commission of City of Chicago
...court below in each instance, although entering different types of findings, ordered immediate reinstatement. In Foreman v. Civil Service Commission, Ill.App., 129 N.E.2d 245, the court found that the findings of fact of the Commission were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidenc......
-
Rose v. Civil Service Commission, Gen. No. 47029
...reveal the temptations which beguile the weak and the venal. People v. Moretti, 6 Ill.2d 494, 129 N.E.2d 709; Foreman v. Civil Service Commission, 7 Ill.App.2d 122, 129 N.E.2d 245; Martin and Topinka v. Civil Service Commission, 7 Ill.App.2d 128, 129 N.E.2d 248; Nolting v. Civil Service Com......
-
Flynn v. Board of Fire and Police Com'rs of City of Harrisburg
...or else lose jurisdiction to hear the charges. In response to this argument, the appellate court quoted Foreman v. Civil Service Commission, 7 Ill.App.2d 122, 129 N.E.2d 245, a case in which a similar argument had been 'The state, it is true, limits the length of this suspension. There is, ......
-
Taylor v. Civil Service Commission of City of Chicago, Gen. No. 48046
...Chicago, 19 Ill.App.2d 447, 154 N.E.2d 323; Logan v. Civil Service Commission, 3 Ill.2d 81, 119 N.E.2d 754; Foreman v. Civil Service Commission, 7 Ill.App.2d 122, 129 N.E.2d 245; Nolting v. Civil Service Commission, 7 Ill.App.2d 147, 129 N.E.2d 236; McCaffery v. Civil Service Board of Chica......