Page 20 - March 2018 FOP Newsletter

As we move through March, I thought it would be helpful to update the membership on sev- eral pieces of litigation which impact us.
FOIA. Many readers will recall that the
Lodge filed an initial complaint on Oct.
28, 2014, seeking to enjoin the release of
both the lists and the actual CR files which
were more than four years old, as the result
of two FOIA requests. In December 2014 and
in May 2015, Judge Flynn preliminarily enjoined
the release of all CR files pending completion of the arbitra- tion between the Lodge and the City (the “File Destruction” case).
The City immediately filed an appeal, and in July 2016, the Appellate Court vacated the preliminary injunctions. The Lodge attempted to pursue a final appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court, but in September 2016, the Supreme Court denied the Lodge’s Petition for Leave to Appeal.
What subsequently remained in the Lodge’s first amended complaint was an attempt to require the City to review CR files and to withhold or redact records addressing private, off-duty conduct that does not bear on officers’ public duties. From the Lodge’s perspective, although the Appellate Court recognized that information bearing on an officer’s public duties must be turned over, it left open whether the release of CR files regarding off-duty conduct that may violate officers’ privacy interests should be turned over.
FOP
Sadly, Judge Flynn did not agree. On Oct. 6, 2017, the Circuit Court granted the City’s motion to dismiss, entering final
judgment.
The Lodge filed a timely appeal with the Appellate
Court. Arguably, allegations regarding off-duty con-
Litigation update
PAT
PAT
FIORETTO
FIORETTO
Labor Report
duct do not bear on an officer’s public duties and would, therefore, amount to an invasion of personal privacy. In its appeal, the Lodge argued that the City has an obligation to review CR files regarding off-duty conduct to evaluate whether the allegations “bear on” officers’ public duties before producing any documents. The Lodge filed its supporting brief on Feb. 8, and the City has until March 15 to
file its response.
File destruction. In a related case, on June 23, 2015, the
Lodge and City participated in an arbitration hearing over two grievances filed by the Lodge over Section 8.4 of the par- ties’ agreement (captioned, “Use and Destruction of File Ma- terials”). On Jan. 12, 2016, the arbitrator issued an opinion and interim award, in which he sustained both grievances, enforcing Section 8.4 of the parties’ agreement and finding the provision to be “consistent with state law and not contrary to state public policy.” As part of the interim award, the arbi- trator directed the parties “...to attempt to negotiate between themselves a time line and method to implement the findings set forth in [the interim award] that the City should be direct- ed to destroy all records covered by Section 8.4 in existence, regardless of the format in which they exist, namely, physical
20 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ MARCH 2018