A group of aviation security officers at O’Hare can’t sue the city for stripping them of their law enforcement credentials, after some of them were recorded dragging a passenger off a plane, as a federal judge ruled the city’s aviation department, for which they worked, wasn’t actually a law enforcement agency.
On Sept. 25, U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman granted the request from the city of Chicago for summary judgment in the security officers’ lawsuit.
The case dates to 2018, when attorney John J. Scharkey, and others with the firm of Sweeney Scharkey & Blanchard, of Chicago, filed suit in Chicago federal court on behalf of named plaintiffs Keia Yates, Leonardo Rodriquez and Johnny Jimmerson.
John J. Scharkey
| ssbpartners.com
The three plaintiffs had worked for the Chicago Department of Aviation, as so-called aviation security officers.
They had filed suit on behalf of all other Chicago aviation security officers, who they said had been effectively stripped of their law enforcement status by the city of Chicago in response to an uproar that followed a video-recorded incident in April 2017 in which Chicago ASOs had forcibly dragged a “noncompliant passenger” from a United Airlines flight. The video was published online and went viral across social media and broadcast television news.
The following month, representatives of the city informed lawmakers that the ASOs were, in fact, not sworn police officers, but were rather “non-armed security personnel” at the airport.
The ASOs in their lawsuit asserted the city’s policy statements effectively stripped them of various benefits that accrue to those who are considered sworn law enforcement officers, which they argued were constitutionally protected property rights.
They argued that, until that point, the Department of Aviation had treated them as police officers, and had been required to train in accordance with the standards set forth by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board. Further, they claimed ASOs have been considered police officers in legal proceedings and were granted law enforcement officer status under the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act.
Judge Gettleman eventually agreed to dismiss the case, but gave the plaintiffs the opportunity amend their case and try again.
On their second attempt, the plaintiffs sued only the city of Chicago.
In deciding in favor of the city, Gettleman noted the ASOs union had also filed an unfair labor grievance against the city, asserting the city had “improperly removed the ASOs LEO authority and altered their duties.”
However, the Illinois Labor Relations Board sided with the city, finding “the ASOs, ‘are not, and have never been, police or peace officers.’”
The decision noted the ASOs had never actually been sworn by the Chicago Police Department, nor were they supervised by the CPD or the CPD superintendent in any way. Rather, they answered only to supervisors at the Department of Aviation.
Gettleman noted the ILRB’s findings indicate the Department of Aviation “should never have been certified as an LEA (law enforcement agency) and that ASOs should never have been certified as LEOs.”
However, the judge also noted that, for whatever reason, the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board “did certify the CDA as an LEA and certify ASOs as LEOs when asked.”
Nonetheless, the judge said: “It is doubtful that plaintiffs have a constitutionally protected property right in something to which they were never entitled.”
Further, Gettleman noted, it was the ILETSB that ultimately decided to “deactivate the ASOs” as law enforcement officers, in an action taken as a result of inquiries initiated in 2016 unrelated to the 2017 United passenger dragging incident. According to Gettleman’s opinion, the inquiries concerning the CDAs status as a law enforcement agency centered on questions over whether ASOs should be eligible for participation in the Illinois Retired Officer Concealed Carry Program, which gives qualified retired police officers the constitutionally protected right to conceal and carry a firearm.
The city’s response “merely confirmed everything the (ILETSB) Board had concluded,” Gettleman wrote. “Thus, if plaintiffs’ work histories have been ‘stripped,’ it was by the ILETSB, not defendant (the city.)”
Further, the judge noted the ASOs are still granted certain privileges reserved for law enforcement officers, including service credits which allow them to skip re-training which would otherwise be required “every time a certified (law enforcement agency) wanted to hire an ASO.”
“Although they remain certified as LEOs, they simply cannot exercise police powers unless they are working for an LEA,” Gettleman wrote.
The city has been represented in the case by attorney Tiffany S. Fordyce, and others with the firm of Greenberg Traurig, of Chicago.