An on-duty police officer was responding to a call of a man with a gun. Although the officer was using the lights and sirens on the squad car, a vehicle collided with the officer’s car. The officer suffered a laceration to his head, pain and numbness in his fingers, and a tear in meniscus that required surgery. Our firm negotiated a settlement prior to trial for $100,000.
A woman’s car was rear-ended by another driver. The accident resulted in a meniscal tear in her right knee. The Herbert Law Firm was able to obtain a $13,000 settlement for our client.
The Human Resources Board found that the City failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that P.R. should be disqualified for exhibiting conduct indicative of violent tendencies. P.R. was reinstated to the eligibility list for the position of police officer with CPD.
CPD Candidate, A.C. was disqualified from the applicant list based on his polygraph examination. It was alleged that A.C.’s conduct during his polygraph examination interfered with the examiner’s ability to reasonably gather data, and thus, warranted his disqualification based on an indication of deception. At the hearing, we were able to prove that A.C. did not intentionally interfere with the polygraph examination and he was erroneously disqualified. The hearing officer and the Human Resources Board both agreed that A.C. should be reinstated to the eligibility list for the position of police officer with CPD.
CPD Candidate R.H. was disqualified from the applicant list when he revealed that there were two incident reports for an alleged domestic disturbance. At the hearing, we were able to prove that R.H. was never arrested for either incident and was not the aggressor; and the City failed to prove that R.H.’s actions constituted any conduct indicating violent tendencies. R.H. was immediately placed back on the eligibility list.
CPD candidate P.L. was disqualified from the applicant list after it was discovered that he had been arrested for an alleged felony hate crime. At the hearing we were able to show that the City failed to properly investigate the arrest and erroneously concluded that the arrest was a proper disqualification per the standards. The Board also noted the impeccable character and work ethic of the applicant in furtherance of its’ decision. P.L. was immediately placed back on the eligibility list.
Chicago Police Applicant J.M. was disqualified from the eligibility list for the position of probationary police officer for violating the prior criminal acts section and propensity for dishonesty sections of the Department’s background standards. A hearing was held and it was determined that the alleged criminal acts cited for reasons of disqualification were not in violation as they occurred over 10 years ago, that using a fake I.D. over 10 years ago did not prove J.M. had a propensity for dishonesty, and that J.M. did not falsify or omit information of a family member’s involvement in a fraud case. J.M., a college graduate, and police officer of a local suburban police department, was immediately returned to the application process. 15HRB043 (2016)
Chicago Police Applicant M.L. was disqualified from the eligibility list for the position of probationary police officer for prior criminal conduct. M.L. sent his request to contest this decision. After review of his file, the Department decided to reinstate applicant” without need for a formal hearing. 16HRB084 (2016)
Chicago Police Applicant N.F. was disqualified from the eligibility list for the position of probationary police officer for conduct indicating dishonesty and for other conduct that may render the Applicant unsuitable for employment. N.F. disclosed on his pre-polygraph form that as a college freshman him and a few friends took some folding chairs with the school logo on it. N.F. also disclosed that while working for the school’s Gym Crew he followed policy by taking $5 from the cash box for lunch, and deducting the time from his timecard to reflect repayment of the $5. N.F. did not explain to the polygraph examiner what the practice was for the cash box. N.F. was also disqualified for “other conduct,” which included N.F. having knowledge that one of his five roommates smoked and sold marijuana. A hearing was held was the hearing officer found that N.F.’s conduct could not properly serve as the basis for disqualification: the money was not stolen, but was a common practice, and reimbursed; and the theft of the folding chair was more in the nature of a prank than a crime. N.F.’s disqualification for knowledge of his roommate’s use and sale of marijuana could not fairly serve as a reason to disqualify N.F. No issues were deemed to have risen to the level of criminal activity. The hearing officer concluded that N.F.’s personal qualities should make him an excellent candidate for the position. 15HRB112 (2016)
Chicago Police Applicant M.D. was disqualified from the eligibility list for the position of probationary police officer for a numeric discrepancy in his admitted marijuana use between the years 2001-2003, and for discrepancy in his admission of using a family member’s Tylenol and Codeine pill for a back injury in 2003. A hearing was held. M.D. explained his submission of two numeric rounding of marijuana use from 2001-2003, 100xs and 50-75xs respectively, as he was trying to be as accurate as possible and was giving an estimate. After testimony, M.D.’s use to one Tylenol and Codeine pill given to him by a relative for back pain had obvious surrounding circumstances, and noted for it to be disqualifying, it would have to have been taken within 10 years of the date of M.D.’s examination. “The City’s assertion that Applicant had intentionally furnished false or misleading information during the application process was not proved. The inconsistencies present in Applicant’s care concerning events which occurred twelve or more years earlier was obviously the result of innocent