DARRYL ENGLISH, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant sought back pay after his discharge from the Illinois Department of Corrections. The Court dismissed the claim because the claimant had agreed, in a settlement with his union, to refrain from initiating any proceedings arising out of the discharge.
Cases cited: Jones v. State, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 414 (2002)
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- Employment - Settlement made by union on behalf of claimant is binding on claimant - Union settled a termination claim on behalf of claimant where the claimant was allowed to voluntarily resign and waive any procedural rights against respondents, including the right to sue.
ORDER
BIRNBAUM, J.
This case is before the Court on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Claimant’s complaint wherein he is seeking back pay in the amount of $145,000.
By way of background, on May 27, 2003, Claimant’s vehicle was stopped by the Chicago Police Department for improper display of a temporary permit. A custodial search revealed that Claimant was in possession of 4.2 grams of crack cocaine. Claimant was placed under arrest and charged with possession of a controlled substance. At the time, Claimant was employed as a correctional officer by the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC).
On May 30, 2003, Claimant was placed on paid leave and served two Employee Review Board referrals. These hearings were held on June 11, 2003, at which time Claimant was placed on suspension without pay pending judicial verdict on the criminal charges.
On December 8, 2004, a motion to suppress evidence and quash arrest was granted in the criminal proceeding at which time the State’s Attorney of Cook County made a motion of nolle prosequi which was granted.
Claimant was placed on paid leave effective December 15, 2004, pending the outcome of an IDOC administrative case investigation. During the [*303] course of the administrative case investigation, Claimant refused to participate in the interview with the reporting investigator and refused to sign interview sheets. The reporting investigator subsequently concluded “that the substance recovered from ENGLISH at the time of his arrest was in fact cocaine[;] the allegation that C/O DARRYL ENGLISH violated the Departmental Rule regarding Conduct of Individual is substantiated. Additionally, when ENGLISH refused to participate in his administrative interview [,] he was in direct violation of Title 20: Corrections, Criminal Justice, and Law Enforcement, Chapter 1, Subchapter a, Part 112.35 relating to Investigations of Incidents.”
On March 30, 2005, an employee review hearing was held after which the hearing officer recommended that Claimant be suspended pending discharge for failure to cooperate in the internal investigation and for conducting himself in an unprofessional manner while off duty by possessing cocaine. On May 12, 2005, the Illinois Department of Central Management Services approved the recommended discharge. Claimant’s discharge for cause became effective on May 18, 2005.
At all relevant times, Claimant, as an employee of IDOC, was covered under the agreement between AFSCME and the State of Illinois as a correctional officer. After following the specifications of the grievance process, AFSCME (on Claimant’s behalf) and IDOC executed a Resolution Prior to Arbitration wherein Claimant agreed to voluntarily resign in exchange for any mention of a discharge being purged from his record. Claimant agreed to the following as part of that disposition:
The Union and the grievant, Darryl English, agree to refrain from
initiating any grievance, administrative or other judicial proceedings
arising out of this discharge action or the circumstances that led to the
filing of charges of discharge.
This resolution is made without precedent or prejudice to either party
and may not be utilized in any subsequent proceedings except for the
enforcement of its terms.
Respondent argues that this agreed upon provision prohibits Claimant from seeking relief in this Court, citing Jones v. State, 55 Ill. Ct. Cl. 414 (2002). We agree. In Jones, this Court held that a union had the authority to effect a settlement for, and to bind, a claimant to its terms. This finding was based on an agreement with identical language to the agreement in this case in a similar wrongful termination claim of an IDOC employee and AFSCME member. This Court found that the claimant had waived any remaining procedural rights against IDOC, including any right to sue. Thus, Claimant is similarly barred from pursuing his claim in this Court by virtue of the underlying settlement [*304] agreement. Claimant fails to address this portion of Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss in his Response.
Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the claim herein is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.