Hofrichter v. City of Chicago Heights
2016 IL App (1st) 153106
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Hofrichter, a Chicago Heights police officer, was top candidate on the 2009 promotion eligibility roster for sergeant; the Board could promote from the top three and could strike a roster after three years if no vacancy existed.
- In September–November 2013 the Board solicited military-point submissions, drafted a 2013 roster (on which Hofrichter ranked ninth), cancelled the 2009 roster, promulgated the 2013 roster, and promoted two officers on November 13, 2013.
- Hofrichter waited one year and filed suit on November 13, 2014 seeking declaratory relief, administrative review, and damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, claiming the Board’s actions denied him promotion and rights.
- Defendants moved to dismiss arguing laches and untimeliness of administrative review, waiver by Hofrichter, and that administrative review was his exclusive remedy; the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the administrative-review and declaratory-judgment counts on laches grounds but reversed dismissal of the § 1983 and § 1985 claims, holding those federal claims could proceed in circuit court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / Laches for administrative review and declaratory relief | Hofrichter offered no excuse but sought review and declaratory relief despite one-year delay | Delay (12 months) was unreasonable and prejudiced Board because third parties had been promoted and paid | Held: Delay was unreasonable (civil-service >6 months per se) and prejudiced Board; laches bars administrative review and declaratory counts (affirmed) |
| Exclusivity of Administrative Review Law over federal claims (§§ 1983, 1985) | Hofrichter argued Administrative Review Law does not preclude federal civil-rights claims and that federal claims were not before the Board | Defendants argued Administrative Review Law is the sole remedy for challenges to Board final actions | Held: Administrative Review Law does not bar § 1983/§ 1985 claims that could not have been adjudicated by the Board; appellate court reversed dismissal of federal claims and remanded |
| Whether Administrative Review Law governed the Board action | Defendants contended Administrative Review Law applied to final Board decisions | Hofrichter contended it did not apply (and pled it only arguendo) | Held: Court questioned applicability where no agency hearing/record existed but did not decide definitively because federal claims survive regardless |
| Prejudice to defendant from delay | Hofrichter argued his delay did not change defendants’ conduct | Defendants argued prejudice is inherent where employer paid replacements for services (double payment) | Held: Prejudice found — Board paid and relied on promoted officers’ services; laches established |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. Sheriff’s Merit Comm’n, 218 Ill. 2d 342 (standard of de novo review of dismissals)
- Lee v. City of Decatur, 256 Ill. App. 3d 192 (laches defined and applied in civil-service context)
- Coleman v. O’Grady, 207 Ill. App. 3d 43 (laches can bar declaratory relief including back pay claims)
- Kadon v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 45 Ill. App. 2d 425 (delay >6 months in civil-service cases unreasonable)
- Bill v. Board of Education of Cicero School District 99, 351 Ill. App. 3d 47 (prejudice where employer must pay for services twice)
- Stykel v. City of Freeport, 318 Ill. App. 3d 839 (Administrative Review Law does not preclude § 1983 claims when constitutional issues could not have been before agency)
- Board of Education of Rich Township High School Dist. No. 227 v. Brown, 311 Ill. App. 3d 478 (trial court retains original jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues raised in administrative context)
- Marozas v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 222 Ill. App. 3d 781 (distinguished — § 1983 dismissed there for failure to plead a claim and waiver)