Taylor v. Police Board of the City of Chicago
2011 IL App (1st) 101156
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Taylor, a Chicago police officer, was discharged for perjury (Rule 1) and false statements (Rule 2) in 2007–2009 disciplinary actions.
- Previously, in Taylor I (2005), he was found not guilty of bigamy; he argued res judicata barred the later action.
- Taylor testified in a 2004 divorce proceeding that he could not locate Tamela; later, in Bridgette’s criminal harassment case, he claimed he did not testify in that divorce prove-up, which was false.
- The Board initially rejected Taylor’s res judicata collateral estoppel defenses and proceeded to adjudicate Taylor II (2007) charging Rule 1 and Rule 2 violations.
- The circuit court affirmed the Board; on appeal, the court held res judicata did not bar Taylor II but addressed materiality of the perjury and sustained Rule 2 violations with remand for punishment reconsideration.
- The appellate court reversed the perjury finding as not material, but affirmed Rule 2 violations and remanded for potential lesser punishment focused on Rule 2 only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does res judicata bar Taylor II? | Taylor argues Taylor I precludes Taylor II. | Board argues Taylor I and II arise from different operative facts. | Res judicata does not bar Taylor II. |
| Was Taylor’s perjury proven, and was it material? | Taylor contends the perjury finding was unsupported or immaterial. | Board asserts perjury proved; the testimony was material to the Bridgette proceeding. | Perjury not proven; the false statements were immaterial; but Rule 2 violations affirmed. |
| Did Taylor fabricate false statements under Rule 2 beyond perjury? | N/A (focus on materiality of perjury). | Taylor lied about Bridgette’s divorce proceedings and Tamela’s whereabouts, violating Rule 2. | Rule 2 violations established; lies found to be material to trustworthiness concerns. |
| Is the Board’s treatment of materiality appropriate under the law? | Materiality required to be proven for perjury; credibility alone is insufficient. | Materiality could be inferred from impact on credibility and relevant issues. | Materiality is a mixed question; perjury reversed for immateriality, but Rule 2 upheld. |
| What is the appropriate remedy given the affirmed Rule 2 violations? | Discharge remains warranted for Rule 2 violations. | Punishment should reflect the affirmed violations without necessarily upholding the perjury loss. | Remand for reconsideration of punishment solely on Rule 2 violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290 (1998) (defines transactional test for identity of causes of action)
- Bagnola v. SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, 333 Ill. App. 3d 711 (2002) (transactional approach to res judicata; composite analysis of claims)
- Rutledge, 257 Ill. App. 3d 769 (1994) (perjury materiality requires issue in question; credibility alone insufficient)
- Columbo, 118 Ill. App. 3d 882 (1983) (materiality requires false statements to pertain to the issue)
- Acevedo, 275 Ill. App. 3d 420 (1995) (illustrates materiality connection between false statement and case issues)
- Olinger, 176 Ill. 2d 326 (1997) (strict materiality standard in perjury context; postconviction setting)
- LeCour, 172 Ill. App. 3d 878 (1988) (extreme deference standard to board findings on mental state is discussed)
- Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (materiality requires applying legal standard to historical facts)