IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION

Transcription

1 ISMAEL HARO, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT LAW DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No. CITY OF BLUE ISLAND, MICHAEL CORNELL, and KEVIN SISK, Defendants. Plaintiff Demands Trial By Jury COMPLAINT Plaintiff Ismael Haro, through his undersigned counsel, seeks redress against Defendants City of Blue Island, Michael Cornell, and Kevin Sisk, and in support, states as follows: Jurisdiction 1. The court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2 209 in that Plaintiff and the individual Defendants are citizens of the State of Illinois, and Defendant City of Blue Island is a municipality incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois and is located within the State of Illinois. 2. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2 101 in that Plaintiff is a resident of Cook County, Defendant City of Blue Island is located within Cook County, and all or a substantial part of the events giving rise to the cause of action occurred within Cook County.

2 Parties 3. Plaintiff Ismael Haro is a resident of Cook County, Illinois. 4. Plaintiff has been employed as a police officer with the City of Blue Island since 1998, and currently holds the rank of sergeant. 5. Defendant City of Blue Island is a municipality incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois and is located within Cook County. 6. Defendant Michael Cornell is employed by the City of Blue Island as a police officer with the rank of deputy chief of police and is currently the acting Chief of Police. 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Cornell acted within the scope of his employment and as agent of Defendant City of Blue Island. 8. Defendant Kevin Sisk is employed by the City of Blue Island as a police officer with the rank of commander. 9. At all relevant times, Defendant Sisk acted within the scope of his employment and as agent of Defendant City of Blue Island. Facts Regarding the Robbie Silva Investigation 10. On December 1, 2005, a young boy named Robert Thomas Silva ( Robbie Silva ) was killed in a hit and run in Blue Island, and the case received significant media attention. 2

3 11. Defendants Cornell and Sisk, who then held the ranks of detective sergeant and corporal, were two of the officers assigned to investigate the case. 12. During the investigation, a person of interest was identified, and the person of interest s girlfriend was identified as a potential witness to the crime. 13. The girlfriend was also the sister of an individual who held significant political connections in the City. This individual also owned a towing company that held the contract for police tows and was on personal terms with Defendant Cornell. 14. A polygraph interview of the girlfriend was conducted, during which the girlfriend provided an alibi for the person of interest. Defendant Cornell authored and signed a subsequent report regarding the interview, which stated that the girlfriend passed the polygraph and that she is telling the truth. 15. Due to Defendant Cornell s report that the girlfriend had passed the polygraph, the lead was not pursued. 16. The case went cold and was never solved. 17. In March 2009, Beth Ann Thomas, the mother of Robbie Silva, contacted Plaintiff, who was then a detective, and asked him to take a fresh look at the case in order to bring her son s murderer to justice. 18. Beth Ann Thomas informed Plaintiff that she believed the case had been mishandled by Defendant Cornell. 3

4 19. When Plaintiff looked for the case in the homicide files, however, he was unable to locate it. 20. Plaintiff searched the archives for police reports related to the case and was also unable to find them. 21. Plaintiff approached then Police Chief Douglas Hoglund and informed him of the missing files. Chief Hoglund suggested that Plaintiff ask Defendant Cornell about the missing files. 22. When Plaintiff approached Defendant Cornell about the matter, Defendant Cornell admitted that he had the file in his possession and demanded to know why Plaintiff was interested in the file. 23. Plaintiff told Defendant Cornell that Beth Ann Thomas had asked Plaintiff to review the case, to which Defendant Cornell responded to the effect of, That woman needs to get over it. Her son is dead and the offender in the case has likely fled to Mexico. 24. Plaintiff asked Defendant Cornell for the file nonetheless, and Defendant Cornell said that he would get the file to Plaintiff. 25. Defendant Cornell did not provide the file to Plaintiff, but another detective eventually obtained the file from Defendant Cornell. 4

5 26. Upon reviewing the file, Plaintiff discovered that the investigative file had not been maintained in accordance with applicable investigative standards. Among other things, Plaintiff discovered that: a. Multiple original reports were missing from the file; b. Reports generated during the investigation had not been approved or submitted to the records department for archival; c. Reports were deficient and inadequate; d. Leads had not been exhausted or followed up on; e. No lead sheet had been created for the case, and there was no management system for the case; f. The file did not contain information related to the person of interest. 27. Plaintiff notified Chief Hoglund of the file s deficiencies, and Chief Hoglund authorized Plaintiff to informally resume investigation of the case as time and resources permitted. 28. While reinvestigating the case, Plaintiff recovered multiple original reports that had been missing from the case file, one of which was the original polygraph report generated by the officer who conducted the polygraph interview on the person of interest s girlfriend. 5

6 29. The newly discovered original report stated that the polygraph was inconclusive. 30. The separate report that had always been maintained in the case file and which had been authored by Defendant Cornell, however, stated that the girlfriend passed the polygraph and that she is telling the truth. 31. Given the falsified police report, the incomplete state of the file, the missing reports, the failure to follow up on leads, and the girlfriend s political connections, Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendant Cornell had deliberately failed to properly investigate the case and had illegally falsified the polygraph report. 32. In or around February 2012, Plaintiff reported his findings to Chief Hoglund, in particular his reasonable belief that Defendant Cornell had falsified the report regarding the girlfriend s polygraph interview. 33. Chief Hoglund authorized Plaintiff to continue to investigate the case quietly and to notify him when the case was ready to be formally reopened. 34. Hoglund also authorized Plaintiff to enlist the assistance of the South Suburban Major Crimes Task Force (SSMCTF). 35. Plaintiff contacted Illinois State Police Master Sergeant Tom Weatherald, commander of the SSMCTF, and informed him of Plaintiff s findings relative to the Robbie Silva case and Plaintiff s reasonable belief that Defendant Cornell had falsified a critical police report. 6

7 36. Formal reopening of the case was set for the first week of April On the morning the Silva case was to be reopened, at about 2:00 a.m., a truck from the tow company, whose owner was the brother of the person of interest s girlfriend, was seen outside of Defendant Cornell s residence. 37. After the investigation was reopened, Plaintiff traveled to Tennessee to interview witnesses. Subsequently, the owner of the tow company complained to the police department about the investigation and the interviews. 38. Plaintiff also learned that Defendant Cornell had spoken with the owner of the tow company about the reactivation of the case and had then spoken with witnesses after they had been interviewed by the SSMCTF. 39. The reopening of the investigation resulted in the identification of a clear suspect, who was the same person of interest who had previously been identified. Due to the passage of time, however, the suspect could not be located and the suspect has never been charged. Facts Regarding Retaliation Against Plaintiff 40. In May 2012, Chief Hoglund resigned under political pressure after he tried to remove Defendant Cornell from his position as deputy chief. 41. Phil Contreras was appointed the new chief of police. 42. Defendant Cornell remained as the deputy chief and immediately ordered that the detective division would henceforth report to him. 7

8 43. Shortly after Contreras appointment, Plaintiff met with Contreras to update him on current investigations, including the reactivated Robbie Silva matter and Plaintiff s beliefs about the handling of the case by Defendant Cornell, in particular the false police report Defendant Cornell authored in the case. 44. While Plaintiff stated that he would work on the case only as time and resources allowed and that he would stay on top of any incoming cases, Contreras directed Plaintiff to let sleeping dogs lie and ordered him to concentrate on new cases instead. 45. In the summer of 2012, Plaintiff learned that Beth Ann Thomas had filed a complaint with the Cook County State s Attorney regarding Defendant Cornell s handling of the Robbie Silva case. 46. Plaintiff met with the chief prosecutor of the Cook County State s Attorney s Public Integrity Unit and reported his findings in the case, including his findings regarding the false police report filed in the case by Defendant Cornell. 47. Soon afterward, Defendant Cornell began questioning Plaintiff s handling of cases assigned to him and accusing him of minor disciplinary infractions. 48. In September 2012, Defendant Cornell significantly reduced the resources available to the detective division in an effort to discourage the reinvestigation of cold cases, including the Robbie Silva case, and detectives within the division requested reassignment due to the onerous working conditions. 8

9 49. On or about September 28, 2012, Plaintiff transferred from the detective division to the midnight patrol shift. Plaintiff assumed command of the midnight patrol shift on September 29, Defendant Cornell began targeting Plaintiff for unwarranted discipline, including but not limited to: a. Accusing Plaintiff of working unauthorized overtime on the Silva case; b. Accusing Plaintiff of failing to notify the chain of command about incidents involving other officers; c. Accusing Plaintiff of making disparaging statements in relation to the staffing changes in the detective division; and d. Accusing Plaintiff of improperly investigating cases. 51. In May 2013, Phil Contreras retired as chief of police, and the City began a 90 day evaluation period to find a new chief. The 90 day evaluation period expired without the City appointing a new chief of police. 52. In August 2013, Defendant Cornell became acting chief of police. 53. While Defendant Cornell had been considered as a possible chief of police, members of the City Council refused to appoint him as chief of police because of concerns about his handling of the Silva matter. 54. Defendant Cornell was aware that this was the reason he was not appointed chief of police. 9

10 55. Defendant Cornell was aware that Plaintiff had reported his findings regarding Defendant Cornell s illegal falsification of the polygraph interview report to former Chief Hoglund, the SSMCTF, and the Cook County State s Attorney s office. 56. Prior to becoming acting chief of police, Defendant Cornell did not have the authority to issue discipline to officers. 57. After becoming acting chief of police and gaining authority to discipline officers, Defendant Cornell initiated a campaign of unlawful and unjustified discipline against Plaintiff, including: a. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of mishandling an internal investigation involving another officer that Defendant Cornell required Plaintiff to conduct; b. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of submitting improper overtime, comp time, and day off requests; c. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of failing to properly notify the detective division regarding a death investigation; d. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of failure to properly inspect the police department kennels; e. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of failing to properly notify the chain of command about a use of force incident. 10

11 58. In November 2013, Defendant Cornell created the position of commander, which was to be an administrative/management position between the ranks of deputy chief and patrol sergeant. 59. Defendant Sisk was appointed commander and assumed the position in December Defendant Sisk, at the direction of Defendant Cornell, initiated three separate formal investigations of Plaintiff in relation to Defendant Cornell s false and unjustified accusations against Plaintiff and subsequently interrogated Plaintiff on three separate occasions regarding Defendant Cornell s accusations. 61. Immediately upon conclusion of the second interrogation, Defendant Sisk notified Plaintiff of yet another formal investigation and also informed Plaintiff that he was being issued a 90 day suspension without pay by Defendant Cornell in relation to the first formal investigation. 62. No officer in the history of the Blue Island Police Department had ever been suspended for more than 30 days. 63. The only prior discipline Plaintiff had ever received had occurred more than ten years earlier. 64. Defendant Cornell justified the suspension by relying on numerous alleged prior disciplinary infractions that had never been documented and were not contained in Plaintiff s personnel file. 11

12 65. As a result of the interrogation, the excessive and unjustified suspension, and the notification of yet another baseless formal inquiry, Plaintiff became ill and had to take a medical leave of absence. 66. Among other things, Plaintiff experienced heart palpitations and shortness of breath that required medical care, and Plaintiff suffered panic attacks when he received phone calls originating from the police station. 67. On July 9, 2014, Plaintiff returned to work from medical leave. 68. Defendant Sisk ordered Plaintiff to report to his office immediately upon arrival at work. When he arrived, Defendant Sisk served Plaintiff with an amended notice of 90 day suspension without pay, effective immediately, and demanded that Plaintiff turn over his badge, uniform, and identification. 69. Defendant Sisk also served Plaintiff with an amended notice of interrogation regarding the third formal inquiry. 70. On July 28, 2014, Defendant Sisk interrogated Plaintiff for the third time. 71. On October 7, 2014, Plaintiff completed his 90 day suspension without pay. 72. When Plaintiff reported for duty on October 7, 2014, Defendant Sisk ordered Plaintiff to report to his office immediately. 12

13 73. Defendant Sisk served Plaintiff with notice of another 90 day suspension without pay by Defendant Cornell in relation to the second formal inquiry, effective immediately. 74. The second 90 day suspension was not justified by either fact or law. 75. Defendant Sisk ordered Plaintiff to depart the premises immediately. COUNT I Violation of the Illinois Whistleblower Act 76. When Plaintiff reported to Chief Hoglund, the SSMCTF, and the Cook County State s Attorney s Office that Defendant Cornell had illegally falsified a police report in the Robbie Silva matter, Plaintiff was reporting what he reasonably believed to be a violation of a state or federal law, rule, or regulation. 77. Defendants wrongfully disciplined and suspended Plaintiff without pay in retaliation for reporting what he reasonably believed to be a violation of a state or federal law, rule, or regulation. 78. Defendants Cornell and Sisk each made, took part in, assisted in, or participated in the decision to investigate Plaintiff and to discipline and suspend Plaintiff without pay. 79. Defendants Cornell and Sisk knew that they were investigating, disciplining and suspending Plaintiff without pay for unlawful retaliatory reasons and not because of his work performance. 13

14 80. Defendants disciplined and suspended Plaintiff in violation of rights guaranteed to him by the Illinois Whistleblower Act, 740 ILCS 174/ As a result of Defendants unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered substantial losses, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, mental and emotional anguish, and embarrassment and humiliation. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of $50,000 and such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable, including but not limited to compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, reinstatement to his prior position, a permanent injunction, pre judgment interest, lost future wages, future pecuniary damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and litigation expenses as allowed by law. COUNT II Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 82. Defendants Cornell and Sisk s actions enumerated above were extreme and outrageous. 83. Defendant Cornell and Sisk knew that there was a high probability that their conduct would inflict severe emotional distress on Plaintiff and they willfully, wantonly, and recklessly disregarded that probability. 84. At all relevant times, Defendants Cornell and Sisk were acting within the scope of their employment and as agents of Defendant City of Blue Island. 14

15 85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of $50,000 and such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable, including but not limited to compensatory damages, a permanent injunction, prejudgment interest, lost future wages, future pecuniary damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and litigation expenses as allowed by law. Respectfully Submitted, ISMAEL HARO s/james G. Vanzant Dana L. Kurtz, Esq. James G. Vanzant, Esq. KURTZ LAW OFFICES, LTD. 32 Blaine Street Hinsdale, Illinois Phone: Facsimile: E mail: dkurtz@kurtzlaw.us E mail: jvanzant@kurtzlaw.us Firm No Attorney for Plaintiff 15