PAC Finds Police Department in Violation of FOIA in Withholding Resignation and Termination Records

PAC Finds Police Department in Violation of FOIA in Withholding Resignation and Termination Records

  Wednesday, April 02, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In response to a FOIA request seeking copies of resignation/termination records and payroll records for city law enforcement officers, a city police department (Department) disclosed the payroll records, but withheld resignation/termination records citing various exemptions under FOIA. After the requestor appealed to the Public Access Counselor of the Attorney General's Office (PAC), the PAC issued binding opinion PAC Op. 25-002 finding that the Department improperly withheld its responsive termination/resignation records.

First, the PAC determined that the Department did not provide detailed factual basis demonstrating how and why disclosing its withheld termination/resignation records would interfere with either (1) a pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceeding or (2) an active administrative enforcement proceeding. Even if the Department had established the existence of an active administrative enforcement proceeding, the PAC opined that the Department improperly withheld its records under a cited exemption because they were not created in the course of that proceeding.

The PAC also rejected the Department’s argument that disclosing the withheld records would create a substantial likelihood of depriving people of a fair trial or an impartial hearing, because the Department did not demonstrate that (1) a trial or adjudication was pending or imminent, and (2) that is was more probable than not that disclosing the records would interfere with a fair trial of impartial hearing. Notably, the PAC stated that the existence of a pending investigation/proceeding or the possibility of criminal charges being filed is not sufficient to establish that a trial is “pending or imminent” for purposes of Section 7(1)(d)(iii) of FOIA.

The PAC also rejected the Department’s argument that the resignation/termination records were confidential and not subject to disclosure under Section 7(1)(d-6) of FOIA, which exempts:

Records contained in the Officer Professional Conduct Database (Database) under Section 9.2 of the Illinois Police Training Act (Act), except to the extent authorized under Section 9.2 of the Act.

Although Section 9.2(c) of the Act generally requires the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board (Board) to maintain the confidentiality of certain local law enforcement records that are obtained by or disclosed to the Board, these confidentiality restrictions prohibit the Board, not local law enforcement entities, from disclosing public records shared with the Board. Because the Act expressly states that local law enforcement agencies are not exempt from disclosing public records subject to FOIA, the PAC reasoned that the Department was authorized to disclose its responsive termination/resignation records, even if those records had been shared with the Board. 

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

Read More

Appellate Court Decides Damages Claims in Development Agreement Dispute

Appellate Court Decides Damages Claims in Development Agreement Dispute

  Tuesday, April 01, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

A developer entered into a 2012 development agreement with a Village to, among other things, purchase property and grade it for the Village’s later use. The agreement required the developer to transfer the property to the Village within three years. This development agreement resulted in years of litigation between the parties, which recently resulted in an Appellate Court decision on the issue of damages for the breach of contract claims. PML Development, LLC v. Village of Hawthorn Woods.

In 2015, the developer filed a lawsuit against the Village claiming that while it was working on the property, the Village issued restricting permits and stop-work orders while it developed a plan for its use of the property, which it claims interfered with the work on the property and caused it to incur additional costs. The Village filed a counterclaim against the developer, alleging that the developer failed to repair the road leading to the property, failed to pay taxes on the property, and the failure to fund the project draw-down account.

In 2020, the trial court found both parties in material breach of the agreement and both parties appealed. In a previous ruling, the Appellate Court agreed that both parties were in breach but held that neither was entitled to damages. The case made its way to the Illinois Supreme Court, which held that both parties alleged viable breach of contract claims and remanded the case back to the trial court to hear and decide the parties' damages claims. We reported on the previous Appellate Court decision here and the Illinois Supreme Court's decision here. 

On remand from the Illinois Supreme Court, the trial court awarded $5,349,677.70 to the developer for costs incurred as a result of the Village’s interference with the development, and $408,000.00 to the Village for the developer’s failure to fund the draw-down account and the failure to repair the road. The developer was awarded attorneys fees for the initial proceedings, but the court denied the request for additional fees. Both parties appealed.

On appeal, the Village contends the developer was not entitled to any damages because it did not establish damages to a reasonable degree of certainty because it had no history of profits. The Appellate Court reviewed the developer’s expert witness testimony and held that the damages were not based entirely on speculation and the calculations were credible. The Village also argued that the trial court erred because it did not award damages for the developer’s failure to convey the property. The Appellate Court held that the Village was not entitled to these damages because it did not pursue monetary damages on this issue until the final appeal.

The developer argued it was improperly denied damages related to overhead costs because of the Village’s delay. However, at trial, multiple witnesses recognized that even if everything had gone according to the plan the project would not have been completed by December 31, 2015. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s decision because the damages the developer sought were not reasonably certain.

Finally, both parties challenged the award of attorney fees. The trial court had ruled that the developer was the prevailing party at the first trial, but neither of the parties were prevailing at the following hearings. The Appellate Court did not agree with the trial court's ruling and held that the developer was the prevailing party entitled to all reasonable costs associated with all of the stages of this case.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More