Joliet Scolded By Federal Judge In Black Detective's Lawsuit

JOLIET, IL — A federal judge asked to dismiss the city of Joliet from a 2019 racial discrimination lawsuit filed by veteran Joliet Police Detective David Jackson has rejected Joliet's arguments, finding merit in the case presented by Jackson and his lawyers.

On the other hand, U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin, in last week's ruling, agreed to dismiss Crest Hill Police Ed Clark, a Crest Hill police officer and Joliet bar owner Frank Baloy as co-defendants in Jackson's lawsuit.

That means the federal lawsuit will move forward against Joliet Police Chief Al Roechner, Deputy Chief Joe Rosado, along with John Perona, who retired as Joliet deputy chief in July 2019 after performance issues were identified by then-city manager Marty Shanahan.

The 66-year-old Durkin, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2012 by President Barack Obama, issued his 21-page ruling in the Joliet police detective's lawsuit on Sept. 29.

Back in March 2019, Crest Hill police arrested Jackson on a misdemeanor domestic violence charge involving an incident with Jackson's mistress at her house on Root Street. The charges were dismissed later by a Will County special prosecutor before going to trial.

Even though the charges did not go trial, Roechner and his administration later gave Jackson a 30-day unpaid suspension for the incident.

Jackson, who has been in the Joliet Police Department for 25 years, maintains in his discrimination lawsuit that he got unfairly targeted because he is Black, and that the Joliet Police Department upper administration, including Roechner, have a history of racial discrimination toward minorities and women in the Joliet Police Department.

Roechner tried to fire Black Joliet Police Officer Lionel Allen in January 2019 after 30 years on the force. Allen's termination never went to the police and fire board for a hearing and Allen was allowed to retire in August 2019. Allen's racial discrimination lawsuit in federal court is also moving forward.

In last week's ruling, Judge Durkin noted that Detective Jackson filed an EEOC charge against Joliet on July 18, 2019. Jackson is also president of the Joliet Black Police Officer Association.

"He alleges that since he filed the EEOC charge, Joliet has taken the following actions against him: stating that he is not in 'good standing,' which has prevented Jackson from obtaining certain housing; refusing to pay for a BPOA member to attend the NBPA national conference, as has been customary; filing 'frivolous' internal affairs charges against Jackson on December 30, 2019 and January 9, 2020; maintaining 'an unlawful no contact’ order against Jackson;' and claiming that Jackson is under investigation," Judge Durkin's ruling noted.

The following are some of the key findings issued by the federal judge in Chicago, whose ruling went against the city of Joliet, Chief Roechner and Roechner's prior and current deputy chief.

• "Jackson alleges that Perona participated in a sham investigation of Jackson motivated by racial dissemination and retaliation. Perona argues that when an arrestee brings an IIED claim arising out of his arrest, 'there must be more than just a lack of probable cause or some excessive force.' But the something 'more' here is that Jackson claims his arrest was the product of retaliatory and discriminatory motive. Moreover, Perona’s and the other defendants’ conduct did not merely expose Jackson to the threat of the loss of his employment; Jackson faced the threat of imprisonment as well. Perona and the defendants surely knew that the threat of imprisonment would cause Jackson severe emotional distress, especially since he is a police officer. Moreover, if Perona’s actions were in fact motivated by discrimination and retaliation, causing such distress was likely his goal. Therefore, Perona’s motion to dismiss Jackson’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is denied."

• Jackson "claims that he was suspended, and later arrested, not only because he spoke out in his role as BPOA president against what he perceived to be racially motivated actions against Officer Allen but also because he is Black. He claims that Joliet and Roechner have taken numerous actions against him not only because he filed an EEOC charge regarding his suspension and arrest but also because he is Black. Suspending and arresting a person because that person is Black is a clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rosado and Perona do not argue otherwise."
• Perona "also argues that the specific allegations against him do not implicate a constitutional right. Jackson makes the following allegations against Perona: he attended a meeting with Roechner in order to intimidate Jackson; with Roechner, he jointly ordered Jackson to return to the Joliet Police Station where he was arrested; and he commented at roll call meetings that Jackson was 'guilty of a crime.' Of course, Jackson does not claim that these individual actions violated his rights. Rather, he makes these allegations to show Perona’s participation in the conspiracy to suspend and arrest him in retaliation for his public comments and because he is Black. It maybe that discovery will show that Perona did not sufficiently participate in the events to establish causation and liability, either directly or in conspiracy with the other defendants. But Perona does not argue in his motion that Jackson has failed to plausibility allege Perona’s participation in the otherwise well pled constitutional violations. Therefore, Perona’s and Rosado’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity is denied."
• "Perona and Rosado argue their alleged actions do not qualify as adverse job actions. This argument misses the point. Jackson’s allegations about Perona’ and Rosado’s 'actions' are not the 'adverse actions' themselves that he alleges for purposes of his claims. The adverse actions Jackson alleges are his suspension an arrest, and Joliet’s continued statements that he is not in good standing as an officer which certainly qualify at this stage of the case as 'adverse job actions.' Jackson’s allegation about Perona’s and Rosado’s conduct are intended to demonstrate that they participated in the conspiracy against him making them liable for the adverse actions he suffered. Therefore, Perona’s and Rosado’s motion to dismiss the claim is denied."
• "Joliet argues that Roechner is entitled to immunity for the false arrest claim under Illinois’s Tort Immunity Act because 'Roechner’s decision to order Plaintiff back to the City Police Station was a discretionary police decision, which is immune from liability.' But Jackson does not object merely to being ordered to show up at the Joliet Police Station. He objects to the fact that he was arrested upon arrival, and plausibly claims that Roechner is liable for that arrest, in part because he ordered Jackson to return to the station. Joliet does not, and cannot, argue that Roechner is entitled to immunity for an arrest made with retaliatory and discriminatory intent, lacking probable cause, as Jackson alleges. Therefore, Joliet’s motion to dismiss Jackson’s false arrest claim is denied."

• "Joliet argues that Jackson has failed to state a claim for false arrest because 'the Joliet Defendants were not the individuals who literally restrained Plaintiff, or otherwise directed the Crest Hill Defendants to arrest Plaintiff,' and 'the Joliet Defendants were not the ‘sole source’ of the domestic violence allegations lodged against Plaintiff that led to his arrest.' But Jackson alleges that he was arrested by Joliet police officers, who the Court can plausibly infer were subject to the command of Chief Roechner and Deputy Chief Perona. Furthermore, Jackson has alleged that Roechner and Rosado communicated with Crest Hill police officers and were involved in the decision to seek a warrant for Jackson’s arrest."
• "The first element of a malicious prosecution claim in Illinois is 'the commencement or continuance of an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding by the defendant.' ... Joliet argues that Jackson fails to allege they caused his prosecution because none of the Joliet Defendants played a 'significant role' in it. This argument, however, is based on isolated analysis of each individual defendant’s conduct apart from the others. This argument ignores Jackson’s claim that Defendants conspired against him making them jointly liable. When Jackson’s allegation against all Defendants are taken as whole, the plausibly of Jackson’s claim is apparent."
• "Jackson has plausibly alleged that Opiola and Clark agreed to arrest Jackson without probable cause, and notably, Opiola and Clark have not moved to dismiss the false arrest or malicious prosecution claims against them. But there is simply no allegation in the complaint permitting the inference that Opiola and Clark were aware of the Joliet defendants’ alleged discriminatory and retaliatory motivation. Therefore, Opiola and Clark’s motion to dismiss the Section 1981 is granted."

Remaining Defendants: City of Joliet, Joliet Police Department, Chief Al Roechner, now-retired deputy chief John Perona, current-deputy chief Joe Rosado.

Plaintiff: Joliet Police Detective David Jackson, whose federal lawsuit was filed Nov. 4, 2019 by attorneys Stacey Vucko and Joseph Vucko, of Vucko Law in Oak Brook.

Dismissed from lawsuit Sept. 29: Frank Baloy, owner of Joliet's Zobel's Tavern; Crest Hill Chief of Police Ed Clark and Crest Hill Officer Jason Opiola.
Lawsuit summary: "Jackson's is also a race discrimination case and unfortunately, it is only the tip of the iceberg," writes Jackson's lawyers. "The Joliet Police Department's anti-black culture and history of retaliation dates back over twenty years."
City of Joliet's legal costs: As of August, Clark, Baird Smith, a Rosemont, Ill., law firm, has already billed $56,479 for its work defending Joliet in Jackson's discrimination lawsuit.

Related Joliet Patch coverage: 12 Federal Lawsuits V. Joliet Police, Soaring Legal Bills