Genius v. The County Of Cook

• Decision Date: 17 March 2010
• Docket Number: No. 1-08-3277.,1-08-3277.
• Citation: 924 N.E.2d 548,398 Ill.App.3d 321,338 Ill.Dec. 342
• Parties: Jack L. GENIUS, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.The COUNTY OF COOK, a Municipal Corporation; The Board of Commissioners of the Cook County Forest Preserve District, a Municipal Corporation; Steven M. Bylina, Superintendent of the Cook County Forest Preserve District; Cook County Civil Service Commission; Cook County Employee Appeals Board; Lawrence Hoffman; Gary Weintraub; Rita Rezko; and Rubye Patterson, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

398 Ill.App.3d 321
924 N.E.2d 548
338 Ill.Dec. 342

Jack L. GENIUS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The COUNTY OF COOK, a Municipal Corporation; The Board of Commissioners of the Cook County Forest Preserve District, a Municipal Corporation; Steven M. Bylina, Superintendent of the Cook County Forest Preserve District; Cook County Civil Service Commission; Cook County Employee Appeals Board; Lawrence Hoffman; Gary Weintraub; Rita Rezko; and Rubye Patterson, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1-08-3277.

Appellate Court of Illinois,
First District, Second Division.

Feb. 23, 2010.
Rehearing Denied March 17, 2010.

924 N.E.2d 549

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

924 N.E.2d 550

John H. Kelly, Ericka J. Thomas, Ottosen Britz Kelly Cooper & Gilbert, Ltd., Naperville, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Cary A. Horvath, Matthew M. Welch, Lauren Plahm, Odelson & Sterk, Ltd., Evergreen Park, for Defendants-Appellees.

Justice THEIS delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Jack L. Genius, appeals from the judgment of the circuit court confirming a decision by defendant, the Cook County Employee Appeals Board (the Employee Appeals Board or the Board), which terminated his employment as a police officer with the Forest Preserve District of Cook County (the District), and denied his request for backpay during the period of his suspension. On appeal, plaintiff contends that: (1) the Board erred in denying his motion to dismiss the District's written charges based on the doctrine of laches; (2) the Board's decision to discharge him was against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (3) the Board erred in denying his request for backpay because the District's suspension without pay for more than 30 days and without written charges violated the Cook County civil service rules. For the following reasons, we find the Board lacked jurisdiction to render its decision and, therefore, reverse the judgment of the circuit court and vacate the decision of the Board.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was hired as a District police officer in 1988, after having completed the requisite civil service examination. He was later promoted to sergeant in 1992. Thereafter, in 1996, he was placed on paid administrative leave due to the pendency of an internal affairs investigation. Based upon that investigation, the District chief of police informed plaintiff that he would be recommending his discharge for his unauthorized purchases and sales of District police badges.

In June 1996, plaintiff was suspended without pay pending the resolution of felony criminal charges filed against him in Vermillion County for the unlawful selling of law enforcement badges. Although the record regarding those criminal proceedings was not before the Board, the parties do not dispute that the criminal proceeding resulted in a mistrial. Plaintiff then appealed, seeking a determination that a retrial should have been barred by prosecutorial misconduct. According to plaintiff, the appellate court declined to find that a retrial would be barred. Thereafter, in February 2001, the indictment against plaintiff was dismissed by the Vermillion County State's Attorney.

Three months later, on May 1, 2001, plaintiff sent a letter to the District demanding his reinstatement and backpay. On May 25, 2001, the District served plaintiff with a “notice of intent to seek his discharge.” Therein, the District alleged that plaintiff engaged in forgery, fraudulent behavior, and sexual misconduct unbecoming an officer in violation of certain rules and regulations of the District police department and the District ethics ordinance. At that time, the District advised him that the disciplinary proceedings would be governed by the Cook County Bureau of Human Resources Ordinance. Cook Co. Municipal Code § 44-41 et seq. (amended April 5, 2000). Specifically, the District informed him that, pursuant to section 4A (13) of that ordinance, Cook Co. Municipal Code § 44-47(13) (amended April 5, 2000), plaintiff had a right to file a written response to the charges within 30 days and that the charges and response would be reviewed by a District panel.

In an attempt to avail himself of the Bureau of Human Resources Ordinance,

924 N.E.2d 551

plaintiff filed a written response to the charges. Additionally, on June 22, 2001, plaintiff filed a grievance with the Employee Appeals Board and petitioned for appeal and review of his five-year suspension without pay. On August 7, 2001, the Board refused to consider his petition after concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his appeal and that the proper forum for resolution of his claims as a civil servant was the Cook County Civil Service Commission. However, the Civil Service Commission had been abolished by ordinance in April 2000. Cook County Ordinance No. 00-O-08, eff. April 5, 2000.

Thereafter, on August 29, 2001, a District hearing panel convened for a “predisciplinary hearing” pursuant to a directive from District Superintendent Joseph Nevius. At that hearing, counsel for plaintiff repeatedly requested that the panel identify the specific rules, regulations or ordinances authorizing it to conduct such a hearing and to identify the authority under which it would be proceeding. The panel refused to respond to questions regarding its authority other than to indicate that its authority was “part of the Civil Service process” and that the forum was an informal hearing to determine whether or not “any other disciplinary action [was] appropriate.” The...