Candidates Lack Standing to Challenge Police Lateral Hiring Ordinance
For an individual to bring a
lawsuit before the court they must have what is known as standing - in other
words, the person must show that he or she has been or is about to be injured
by the defendant. In a recent case, the
an Illinois appellate court found that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring
a lawsuit against the Village of Bellwood for failure to hire the plaintiffs as
police officers. Burdi v. Village of Bellwood, 2016 IL App (1st) 152548-U.
Both Burdi and Carr applied for
jobs on Bellwood’s police force through the Board of Fire and Police
Commissioners, who had sole hiring authority.
The strict process required that each applicant be ranked and tested in
order to be considered for hire. Burdi
was ranked number 1 and Carr number 11. However, due to “unfavorable” results
from the testing, Burdi was told he would not be hired. Soon after, the Village enacted an ordinance
that allowed the mayor to laterally hire any trained and certified police
officers from another jurisdiction.
After the ordinance was adopted, Carr was told by a member of the Board
of Fire and Police Commissioners that he was to be hired but he never received
the confirmation call from the police chief.
The ordinance has since been repealed.
Burdi and Carr filed suit against
the Village claiming that the enactment of the lateral hiring ordinance was
invalid and prevented them from being hired by the police department. The trial court ruled in favor of the Village
and both Burdi and Carr appealed.
On appeal, the appellate court
found that both Burdi and Carr lacked standing because neither of them
sustained or were about to sustain injury due to the enactment of the lateral
hiring ordinance. Burdi lacked standing because the decision not to hire him
stemmed from his failure to pass the required tests, not from the enactment of
the ordinance. Carr, on the other hand,
lacked standing because he was number 11 in the ranking, suggesting he would
not have been hired even if the ordinance had never been enacted. In the end, neither plaintiff was injured by
the enactment of the ordinance because the Village's decision not to hire them
resulted from factors unrelated to the ordinance and, therefore, they lacked
standing.
Post Authored by Amanda Riggs and
Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment