An Illinois state appeals court said Cook County Sheriff’s deputies can’t undo internal punishments strictly because of questions about whether all members of the sheriff's disciplinary review board had been properly appointed.
Joseph Acevedo lost his job on Jan. 12, 2015, through a decision of the Cook County Sheriff’s Department Merit Board. But he argued that decision must be reversed in light of a May 12, 2017, First District Appellate County decision in which justices determined board member John R. Rosales was not validly appointed to the board. Because the opinion in Taylor voided the termination of Taylor, a Cook County Sheriff’s deputy, Acevedo argued the same should be true for him.
According to Acevedo’s complaint, Dart appointed Rosales to the board in June 2011 to replace former member Daniel Lynch, with a term to expire March 19, 2012. However, Rosales served until early 2015. Acevedo said his class would include anyone terminated during Rosales’ time on the board. He argued such workers are “entitled to reinstatement, back pay and make whole relief” dating back to their dates of termination.
Illinois Appellate Justice Aurelia Pucinski
Shortly after filing the first amended complaint, named plaintiffs Enrique Meza and Tamara Wuerffel voluntarily dismissed their claims. Cook County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Allen ultimately dismissed Acevedo’s first amended complaint, saying he lacked jurisdiction over the putative class action because the circuit court can only review actions brought under the Administrative Review Law.
The Illinois First District Appellate Court ruled on Acevedo’s appeal of that finding in an order issued March 26. Justice Aurelia Pucinski wrote the decision; Justices Mary Anne Mason and Terrence Lavin concurred. The order was issued under Supreme Court Rule 23, which restricts its use as precedent.
Acevedo argued Allen had jurisdiction because everything an illegally constituted board did should be considered void. The county defendants said those claims are barred by the so-called de facto officer doctrine; because the putative class wasn’t certified and the other named plaintiffs left the case, a wholesale dismissal was appropriate.
Pucinski pointed to the 2019 Illinois First District Appellate Court opinion in Cruz v. Dart, which concluded “balancing of the public interests at stake favored promoting the orderly functioning of the board instead of invalidating its decisions where the irregularity had been remedied.” Further, she wrote, “the court observed that any unfairness to litigants who came after Taylor and were thus barred from challenging their terminations was ‘more theoretical than practical,’ because even if the court were to conclude that the board decisions in the cases following Taylor were void, the only remedy available to the challengers would be a rehearing in front of a properly constituted board.”
As such, the panel agreed the de facto officer doctrine bars Acevedo’s complaint.
“He is not the first one to collaterally attack this appointment irregularity,” Pucinski wrote. “Because of this, the public interest in exposing such irregularities has been served, and the public interest in preserving the validity of the vast number of the board’s decisions must be upheld.”
Further, the panel noted none of Acevedo’s arguments alleged the improperly appointed board members were incompetent, and while certain litigants aren’t able to challenge merit board decisions, Acevedo’s case doesn’t show a shift in the balance between competing interests.
Representing Acevedo in the matter are attorneys from Kurtz Law Offices and Talon Law, both of Hinsdale.