Opinion ID: 565038
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Perkins

Text: 15 According to the exhibits, Perkins attempted suicide on March 24, 1988, and was consequently charged with a violation of Department Rule 15.20 which prohibits officers from engaging in any activities, on or off duty, which indicate instability of character or personality, and give the appearance of impropriety. The hearing originally scheduled for April 6, 1988 was continued at Perkins' request, or on her behalf, until June 23, 1988. 16 In late April, 1988, the Chicago media featured defendant Dunne as the subject of a sex-for-jobs scandal. 2 Perkins' role in the scandal is unclear. While she apparently made a public disclosure of the fact that she and Dunne had, at some unidentified point in time, engaged in a sexual relationship, she later denied any connection between their relationship and her job with the Department. 17 A Hearing Board comprised of defendants Siragusa, Gabhart and Gaughan convened on June 23, 1988 to hear the charges stemming from the attempted suicide. At the conclusion of the evidence, the Board unanimously agreed that Perkins' conduct indicated instability of character, gave the appearance of impropriety, and threaten[ed] in the future the safety of herself, her fellow officers, and the public. The Board recommended termination, and Dunne, as President of the District, made the final discharge decision. 18 On the basis of these facts, Perkins concludes that she was the victim of quid pro quo sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. She alleges that Silverstein and Dunne subjected her to unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome requests for sexual favors and other unwelcome verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature, and that the defendants' conduct substantially affected the terms, conditions, and privileges of [her] employment, but fails to identify any specific incidents of harassment, to tell us when these unwelcome advances occurred, or to identify what the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment were, or how they were affected. 19 In her Sec. 1983 claims, Perkins charges Silverstein and Dunne with violating the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment, but fails to identify any property or liberty interest in her employment or to allege any prior or subsequent history of disparate treatment. Her Secs. 1985 and 1986 claims are premised on an alleged conspiracy to deprive her of rights and privileges accorded her under the fourteenth amendment and Title VII, but again fail to identify any protected property or liberty interest in her employment or to show a meeting of the minds between the alleged coconspirators. We also note that to the extent these claims are premised on a violation of rights created by Title VII, they are in direct conflict with Great American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366, 378, 99 S.Ct. 2345, 2352, 60 L.Ed.2d 957 (1979). The pendent state due process allegations are also insufficient. Perkins cites no statute, rule or regulation which would entitle her to a hearing before the Commission in connection with her discharge, or to continued employment with the Department.