Court Opinion

ID: 9735751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:29:23.99084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:01.242758
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE UNDERWOOD, dissenting: After describing as “most reckless and irresponsible” Sergeant Walsh’s actions in shooting at the glass on the floor with others nearby, pointing the cocked and loaded gun at the others, and then shooting Sergeant Smith in the face, the majority finds that “the seriousness of this offense is more than enough to warrant the board’s decision to discharge Sergeant Walsh.” (96 Ill. 2d at 106-07.) The majority also notes that “An administrative tribunal’s finding of ‘cause’ for discharge commands our respect,” and that “considerable deference” must be accorded such findings. (96 Ill. 2d at 106.) With those analyses I could not agree more. But in what seems to me a remarkable non sequitur, the majority then proceeds to vacate the board’s order and remand the cause for further hearings. This action apparently is taken because a discharge may affect Sergeant Walsh’s pension rights, and the majority believes he is entitled to a second opportunity to establish that the threats and shooting were the result of the psychiatric problems. There is, however, simply no evidence in this record which indicates the shooting was in any way connected with the unspecified and undefined psychiatric problems. Nor is there any indication that additional, more probative evidence can be produced. A full and complete opportunity was afforded in the original hearing for the introduction of evidence of a causal connection between the shooting and the medical problems. That relationship was not established, and the misconduct was, as the majority states, “more than enough to warrant the board’s decision to discharge Sergeant Walsh.” (96 Ill. 2d at 106-07.) Given the extremely serious and life-threatening nature of the conduct involved here, I see no reason to do other than affirm the board’s action. Sutton v. Civil Service Com. (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 404; DeGrazio v. Civil Service Com. (1964), 31 Ill. 2d 482, 489. JUSTICE MORAN joins in this dissent.