Taylor v. Dart
Decision Date | 12 May 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 1-14-3684,1-14-3684 |
Citation | 2017 IL App (1st) 143684 -B,81 N.E.3d 1 |
Parties | Percy TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas J. DART, Sheriff of Cook County, and the Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Daniel F. Gallagher, James C. Pullos, and Nicole K. Pasquinelli, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant Thomas J. Dart.
Anita M. Alvarez, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Maureen O. Hannon and Thomas Cargie, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for other appellant.
Richard R. Linden, of Law Offices of Richard Linden, of Chicago, for appellee.
¶ 1 The defendants, Thomas J. Dart, Sheriff of Cook County (Sheriff Dart), and the Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board (Merit Board) (collectively, the defendants) filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308 (eff. Feb. 26, 2010). The circuit court certified the following questions for our review:
¶ 2 On September 23, 2016, this court issued its opinion in this case. In answer to the first certified question, we concluded that the October 30, 2013, decision of the Merit Board was void because the Merit Board was illegally constituted at the time of the decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment. In answer to the second certified question, we concluded that the October 30, 2013, decision of the Merit Board was not valid because it is void. Taylor v. Dart , 2016 IL App (1st) 143684, ¶ 47, 407 Ill.Dec. 745, 64 N.E.3d 123. We found that the Board forfeited its argument that any defect with the appointment of John R. Rosales was cured by the Board's subsequent ratification of his appointment. Taylor , 2016 IL App (1st) 143684, ¶ 46, 407 Ill.Dec. 745, 64 N.E.3d 123. The defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.
¶ 3 On January 25, 2017, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for leave to appeal. Taylor v. Dart , No. 121507, 412 Ill.Dec. 918, 77 N.E.3d 86 (Ill. Jan. 25, 2017). In exercise of its supervisory authority, the supreme court ordered this court to vacate that portion of the opinion in which this court declined to consider whether the Cook County Board of Commissioners had home rule authority to approve interim appointments to the Merit Board. The supreme court further directed this court to address that issue and determine whether a different outcome was warranted.
¶ 6 Section 3-7002 of the Counties Code (Code) provides in pertinent part as follows:
¶ 8 On May 5, 2011, Sheriff Dart requested approval from the Cook County Board to appoint John R. Rosales to the Merit Board to fill the vacancy of Commissioner Daniel Lynch, whose term on the Merit Board was to expire on March 19, 2012. The county board approved the Rosales appointment on June 1, 2011. After the expiration of Commissioner Lynch's term on March 19, 2012, Sheriff Dart did not reappoint Mr. Rosales to the Merit Board, and he has continued to serve as a member of the Merit Board.
¶ 9 On October 20, 2011, Sheriff Dart filed a complaint against the plaintiff, alleging misconduct and seeking to terminate his employment as a Cook County sheriff's police officer. On February 27, 2013, Mr. Rosales presided over the hearing held on Sheriff Dart's complaint against the plaintiff. On October 30, 2013, the Merit Board issued its decision, terminating the plaintiff's employment. The October 30, 2013, order was signed by Mr. Rosales and seven Merit Board members.
¶ 10 The plaintiff filed a complaint for administrative review of the Merit Board's decision. On May 7, 2014, the circuit court issued a memorandum and order, affirming the Merit Board's decision terminating the plaintiff's employment. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order arguing, inter alia , that the appointment of Mr. Rosales to the Merit Board was invalid because he was not appointed to a six-year term as required by section 3-7002 of the Code ( 55 ILCS 5/3-7002 (West 2012) ).
¶ 11 The circuit court granted the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, finding that the appointment of Commissioner Rosales was invalid because he was appointed to less than a six-year term. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the decision of the Merit Board remained valid because seven lawful members voted to terminate the plaintiff's employment. The court found that the Merit Board was not lawfully constituted at the time it rendered its decision, and therefore, its decision could not be given effect. The circuit court vacated the Merit Board's October 30, 2013, decision, terminating the plaintiff's employment, and remanded the case for a new hearing on the charges against the plaintiff before a legally constituted Merit Board. The court denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration.
¶ 12 Following the circuit court's certification of the questions for review, the defendants filed their request for leave to appeal, which was granted by this court on December 23, 2014.
¶ 15 Rule 308 requires that the certified questions presented to this court for review be questions of law. Therefore, our review is de novo . Zlatev v. Millette , 2015 IL App (1st) 143173, ¶ 17, 397 Ill.Dec. 826, 43 N.E.3d 153. This case also requires this court to construe section 3-7002 of the Code, which is also a question of law to which the de novo standard of review applies. Majid v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund , 2015 IL App (1st) 132182, ¶ 13, 393 Ill.Dec. 83, 33 N.E.3d 827.
¶ 17 "The fundamental principle of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature." Gilchrist v. Human Rights Comm'n , 312 Ill.App.3d 597, 602, 245 Ill.Dec. 484, 728 N.E.2d 566 (2000). The court looks first at the statutory language, as it is the best indication of the intent of the drafters. Majid , 2015 IL App (1st) 132182, ¶ 16, 393 Ill.Dec. 83, 33 N.E.3d 827. Unless defined therein, the unambiguous words in the statute are to be given their plain and ordinary meanings. Majid , 2015 IL App (1st) 132182, ¶ 16, 393 Ill.Dec. 83, 33 N.E.3d 827. The statute must be applied so that no part is rendered superfluous. Majid , 2015 IL App (1st) 132182, ¶ 16, 393 Ill.Dec. 83, 33 N.E.3d 827. " ‘Courts must also consider the reason and necessity for the law, the evils sought to be remedied and the purpose to be achieved.’ " Majid , 2015 IL App (1st) 132182, ¶ 16, 393 Ill.Dec. 83, 33 N.E.3d 827 (quoting DiFiore v. Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund , 313 Ill.App.3d 546, 551, 246 Ill.Dec. 227, 729 N.E.2d 878 (2000) ).
¶ 18 As an administrative body, the Merit Board obtains its power to act from the legislation creating it, and its power to act is strictly confined to that granted in the enabling statute. Gilchrist , 312 Ill.App.3d at 601, 245 Ill.Dec. 484, 728 N.E.2d 566. Administrative agencies have no general or common-law powers. Daniels v. Industrial Comm'n , 201 Ill.2d 160, 165, 266 Ill.Dec. 864, 775 N.E.2d 936 (2002). Where an administrative body acts outside of its specific statutory authority, it acts without jurisdiction, and its actions are void and a nullity from their inception. Daniels , 201 Ill.2d at 165, 266 Ill.Dec. 864, 775 N.E.2d 936. Where an agency's action is void, it may be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally. Daniels , 201 Ill.2d at 166, 266 Ill.Dec. 864, 775 N.E.2d 936.
¶ 19 With these principles in mind, we address the first certified question.
¶ 21 From the plain language of the statute, we glean that the purpose of section 3-7002 is to select individuals to serve on the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goral v. Dart
...seeking to terminate their employment.¶ 5 On September 23, 2016, the appellate court issued its first decision in Taylor v. Dart , 2016 IL App (1st) 143684, ¶¶ 7-8, 407 Ill.Dec. 745, 64 N.E.3d 123, which held that Taylor's termination as a Sheriff's employee was void because the Merit Board......
-
Goral v. Dart
...against Evans with the Board, seeking his termination.¶ 12 Our second decision in Taylor v. Dart , 2017 IL App (1st) 143684-B, 414 Ill.Dec. 735, 81 N.E.3d 1, was issued on May 12, 2017. Our holding was the same: the interim appointment of Rosales violated state law, and the Board's final de......
-
Lopez v. Dart
...Merit Board members who participated in this termination decision was appointed without proper authorization, pursuant to Taylor v. Dart , 2017 IL App (1st) 143684-B, 414 Ill.Dec. 735, 81 N.E.3d 1, the Merit Board's decision was a nullity and void from inception. Accordingly, the plaintiff ......
-
Beyer v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi.
...rules, which was a position taken by plaintiffs in the circuit court, the remedy would have been another hearing. See Taylor v. Dart , 2017 IL App (1st) 143684-B, ¶ 46, 414 Ill.Dec. 735, 81 N.E.3d 1 (where hearing was not conducted in compliance with applicable statute, remedy was for board......