Ming&Sirder Fre O9s97) ~
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Cy
_/
Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge James B. Moran than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 7007 DATE 9/21/2001
CASE Sheila Zinnermon vs. City of Chicago etc.
TITLE
Un the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
Memorandum Opinion and Order

DOCKET ENTRY:

€) a Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) q Brief in support of motion due

(3) QO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at

(5) 0 Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at

(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :

7) go Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) Qo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

QOFRCP4(m) CGeneralRule21 CIFRCP41(a\1) C1 FRCP41(a)(2).

(0) «+4 [Other docket entry} Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Plaintiff has been subpoenaed to
testify at the hearing. She moves for a protective order precluding any inquiry of her at that hearing. The
motion is denied.

(il) ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court,

No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone. pe? ad alll

o | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

date mailed notice
courtroom

WAH deputy’s
initials

Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office

uailing deputy initials



3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
SHEILA ZINNERMON, )
Plaintiff, }
vs. } No. 01 C 7007
CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT }
OF POLICE, ) SEP 2 4 2008
Defendant. }

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, a former probationary police officer, claims that she was discharged in
retaliation for reporting police misconduct by two other officers. Charges against one of the
officers are to be heard by the Police Board on September 25, 2001. Plaintiff has been
subpoenaed to testify at the hearing. She moves for a protective order precluding any inquiry
of her at that hearing, The motion is denied.

This is not a case in which a plaintiff brings a constitutional challenge to a state
administrative hearing. Rather, she claims that requiring her testimony by attorneys who
represent the defendant in her case, without her attorney being present, is unfair and
prejudicial to her. We think the principles developed in cases involving constitutional
challenges apply with even greater force here. A municipality has a strong interest in the full
adjudication of charges of misconduct by a police officer. A federal court should not intervene
absent a demonstrated bias by the hearing tribunal, and we question whether federal
intervention is warranted even then since the state courts are available for any redress that
may be appropriate. See Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools. Inc., 477

B Woran

JAMES B. MORAN

nior Judge, U. S. District Court
Yegh al » 2001.

U.S. 619 (1986).

fo