Nawara v. Cnty. of Cook
| Decision Date | 29 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 17 C 2393,17 C 2393 |
| Parties | JOHN NAWARA, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF COOK, a unit of local Government and THOMAS DART, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff John Nawara has worked as a correctional officer at the Cook County Sheriff's Office ("CCSO") since 1998. In September 2016, while working a shift at the Cook County Jail, Nawara got into an altercation with his superintendent, Karen Jones-Hayes. Jones-Hayes reported the incident, and Matthew Burke—the chief of staff of CCSO's Department of Corrections—sent Nawara to Human Resources ("HR") to determine whether he should be required to undergo a professional fitness-for-duty examination. Leave and Absence Manager Rebecca Reierson and occupational nurse Winnifred Shelby were tasked with meeting with Nawara and making the determination. After a tense and uncomfortable meeting with Nawara, Reierson and Shelby placed Nawara on authorized leave and told him he could not return to work until he completed a fitness-for-duty examination. They also directed him to sign some paperwork to get the process started. Nawara refused to sign the paperwork, however, and spent some ten months on leave before agreeing to undergo the fitness-for-duty exam and ultimately returning to work. While he was on leave, Nawara filed this action against Cook County and Thomas Dart in his official capacity as Cook County Sheriff [1], arguing, among other things, that Defendants—referred to hereafter collectively as "CCSO"—had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4), by forcing him to undergo a fitness-for-duty exam and requiring him to sign what he believes are unlawful medical disclosure forms as a part of that process.
At trial, the jury found for Nawara on this issue but awarded him zero dollars in emotional damages. The appropriate award of backpay is for the court to decide. Defendants have moved for judgment as a matter of law [312]. They contend that no reasonable jury could have found liability, and that Nawara is not legally entitled to backpay [347]. For reasons explained here, the court declines to disturb the jury's liability determination but also defers any award of backpay pending further briefing on the issue of whether such an award is appropriate here. In addition to that briefing, the court directs the parties to submit additional information within 21 days to enable the court to make an appropriate backpay calculation should the court decide that such an award is warranted.
The court summarizes the evidence here, recognizing that it must view that evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict. Plaintiff Nawara began working for CCSO on September 28, 1998 and remained employed by CCSO as of the time of trial. (Trial Tr. [321-332] at 973:9-11, 1049:2-7.) On September 28, 2016, Nawara was assigned to work in the basement of Cermak Hospital, an on-site hospital for the County Jail detainees. (Id. at 509:10-14, 1049:11-19.) At the time, Nawara was monitoring maximum security detainees in the hospital's basement waiting room—also known as the "staging area." (Id. at 1049:17-1050:11.) As a correctional officer in the staging area, Nawara was responsible for ensuring that detainees were properly cuffed and shackled. (Id. at 1050:12-14, 1183:16-20.) A "shackle" is "basically a large handcuff . . . for around your ankles." (Id. at 530:14-17.) During Nawara's shift, a fight broke out between two detainees—one uncuffed and one cuffed but not shackled. (Id. at 1050:21-1051:3.) Nawara and a fellow officer, James Turrise, broke up the fight. (Id. at 562:15-20.) When asked about his emotional state as he broke up the fight, Nawara testified that he "wasn't happy, calm, upset . . . just doing [his] job." (Id. at 981:10-20.) About 40 minutes later (id. at 736:6-18), Nawara was in the adjacent room—the "control" room—with Officer Barbie Gannon when Sergeant Thomas Conley and Superintendent Karen Jones-Hayes entered the room. (Id. at 992:16-993:1.) Conley and Jones-Hayes were both senior in rank to Nawara; sergeants rankdirectly above correctional officers, while superintendents are three ranks above sergeants. (Id. at 511:6-12.)
Jones-Hayes testified that she had been making her rounds that day when, on her way into the control room, she observed that a number of detainees in the staging area were not properly handcuffed or shackled. (Id. at 1181:15-17, 1183:25-1184:7.) When Jones-Hayes directed Nawara to ensure the detainees were properly secured, he turned away without responding. (Id. at 1186:8-16.) According to Jones-Hayes, she then "touched his arm" and asked him to "go and shackle and handcuff the detainees," and in response, Nawara "just exploded—erupted on [her]." (Id. at 1186:17-20.) Jones-Hayes testified that he "got in [her] face," balled up his fist, and screamed, " " (Id. at 1186:21-24.) Jones-Hayes then left to continue making her rounds by heading to the Cermak Emergency Room ("ER"). (Id. at 1187:8-1191:1.)
According to Jones-Hayes, a couple of minutes after she arrived in the ER, Nawara "burst in the door screaming" at her for making his job more difficult. (Id. at 1191:18-1192:11.) After their interaction in the control room, Nawara had struggled to shackle one of the detainees and blamed Jones-Hayes for his troubles. (Id. at 1192:3-23.) Jones-Hayes then followed Nawara to the staging area (id. at 1193:7-1194:7), and asked the unshackled detainee to "[h]ave a seat so the officer can shackle you," but the detainee refused, saying, (Id. at 1195:2-9.) Eventually, Jones-Hayes was able to prevail upon the detainee to allow Nawara to shackle him. (Id. at 1195:13-22.) This made Nawara angry; Jones-Hayes testified that as she was leaving the staging area, Nawara said in her ear, (Id. at 1198:4-8.) Jones-Hayes responded, "No, sir . . . I'm going to ask you to do [your] job," and left. (Id. at 1198:19-23.)
Nawara confirmed portions of Jones-Hayes account but denied others. He testified that Jones-Hayes "seemed upset" and "was raising her voice" when she entered the room. (Id. at 998:11-13, 999:8-10.) He says she "poked" him twice, and, after the first poke, he "kind offreaked out a little bit." (Id. at 994:12-995:3, 997:2-4.) But according to Nawara, although his voice "[p]robably could have been" "a little raised," he did not scream at Jones-Hayes. (Id. at 995:11-15.) Nor did he use the F-word towards Jones-Hayes at any point that day. (Id. at 1006:8-16.) He admitted that he sarcastically remarked, "Maybe if you follow me around, I can do my job." (Id. at 1004:20-23.) Nawara also acknowledged that it was improper for him to make that remark. (Id. at 1005:4-11.) But he discounted that the comment was disruptive, as he had said it "[l]oud enough only for her to hear" because "that's just between me and my supervisor . . . I still wasn't going to let the inmates hear me." (Id. at 1004:24-1005:7.) Gannon, Turrise, and Conley were all in the control room at the time (id. at 514:11-13, 569:24-570:3, 992:16-18), and none recalled Nawara using any profanity. (Id. at 519:4-10, 571:9-11, 697:18-20.)
After the incident, Jones-Hayes wrote up a report (id. at 1199:2-8), and sent it to her immediate supervisor, Jeff Johnsen, who in turn reported it to Matthew Burke, chief of staff for CCSO's Department of Corrections. (Id. at 777:6-15, 795:3-796:10, 1200:10-12.) Although Nawara returned to work at Cermak the day after the incident (id. at 1007:11-15), Burke reassigned him to the External Operations unit at the start of the following work week. (Id. at 809:15-18, 1007:16-1008:1.) The External Operations unit provides security for everything outside of the jail under the leadership of Superintendent Richard Brogan, not Superintendent Jones-Hayes. (Id. at 809:19-22, 1008:2-3.) Burke was aware this was a reassignment to a position in which Nawara would be authorized to carry a firearm. (Id. at 810:5-11.) Burke felt "it was prudent just to get [Nawara] out of [Cermak and] away from [Jones-Hayes]" but "did not feel as though he was a threat to himself or others." (Id. at 1749:19-23.) On September 29, Burke also referred Nawara's case to the Human Resources department ("HR"), requesting that [Officer] John Nawara . . . be evaluated for fitness for duty." (Burke Referral to HR, Ex. 10 to Def.'s Mot. for J. [312-10] (hereinafter "Burke Referral") at 2.) Before referring Nawara's case, Burke did not contact any witnesses; nor did he review videotapes of the episode in the Cermak basement fromSeptember 28—a task that would have taken him no more than ten minutes.1 (Trial Tr. at 798:4-799:15, 800:20-806:4.)
HR received the referral on September 29, 2016. (Burke Referral at 1.) Before the end of the month, Nawara's case was assigned to Leave and Absence Manager Rebecca Reierson. (Trial Tr. at 222:12-25.) After reviewing Burke's referral, Reierson testified that the "first thing" she did was reach out to Jones-Hayes via email to gather more information. (Id. at 375:9-12, 377:12-18.) Jones-Hayes never responded. (Id. at 378:9-380:3; Reierson Burke Emails, Ex. 11 to Def.'s Mot. for J. [312-11] (hereinafter "Reierson Burke Emails").) On November 8, Reierson contacted Burke with the following message: "There is not enough information in this referral to support sending Officer Nawara for a fitness for duty evaluation." (Reierson Burke Emails.) Burke responded minutes later, suggesting that HR should "still investigate." (Id.) Reierson replied, "Is this something more than insubordination that should be handled through the disciplinary process?" (Id.) On November 9, Burke sent an email to...
To continue reading
Request your trial