Updates on cases, laws, and other topics of interest to local governments

Subscribe by Email

Enter your Email:
Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Subscribe in a Reader

Follow Municipal Minute on Twitter

Disclaimer

Blog comments do not reflect the views or opinions of the Author or Ancel Glink. Some of the content may be considered attorney advertising material under the applicable rules of certain states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please read our full disclaimer

Tuesday, July 30, 2024

Court Dismisses Lawsuit by Former Police Chief


An Illinois Appellate Curt upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a former chief of police against village officials in Ritz v. Neddermeyer and Grace.

The plaintiff was employed by the village under a three-year contract to serve as its police chief. Just before the contract was about to expire, the plaintiff (still serving as chief) met with the village president, who asked him to continue as police chief until a new village administrator was hired. Plaintiff claims that during this meeting, the village president told him he “would be favorably considered for a contract extension given his exemplary service.”

Sometime after the new administrator was appointed, plaintiff was told that if he did not resign as police chief, he would be terminated. He did resign and then filed a lawsuit claiming that the village president and administrator conspired against him to commit “fraud in the inducement.” Specifically, he claimed he relied to his detriment on the president’s statement in their meeting and that he had been fraudulently induced to stay on as police chief.

The trial court dismissed the case, and plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the dismissal, finding that his claims were not actionable. First, the Court held that the president’s statements did not offer any guarantee of continued employment, so his reliance was not reasonable. The Court also found no fraud, nor conspiracy in the village officials' actions. The Court also determined that the individual defendants had immunity for their actions under the Tort Immunity Act because employment decisions are inherently discretionary policy decisions.

Post Authored by Madeline Tankersley & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

0 comments:

Post a Comment