INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFCOOKCOUNTY,ILLINOIS

COUNTYDEPARTMENTLAWDIVISION

ISMAELHARO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CaseNo.

CITYOFBLUEISLAND,MICHAEL

CORNELL,andKEVINSISK,

Defendants.
PlaintiffDemandsTrialByJury

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Ismael Haro, through his undersigned counsel, seeks redress against
DefendantsCityofBlueIsland,MichaelCornell,andKevinSisk,andinsupport,states
asfollows:
Jurisdiction
1.

Thecourthasjurisdictionoverthismatterpursuantto735ILCS5/2209

in that Plaintiff and the individual Defendants are citizens of the State of Illinois, and
DefendantCityofBlueIslandisamunicipalityincorporatedunderthelawsoftheState
ofIllinoisandislocatedwithintheStateofIllinois.
2.

Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2101 in that

Plaintiff isaresidentofCookCounty,DefendantCity of Blue Islandis located within

CookCounty,andallorasubstantialpartoftheeventsgivingrisetothecauseofaction
occurredwithinCookCounty.

Parties
3.

PlaintiffIsmaelHaroisaresidentofCookCounty,Illinois.

4.

PlaintiffhasbeenemployedasapoliceofficerwiththeCityofBlueIsland

since1998,andcurrentlyholdstherankofsergeant.
5.

Defendant City of Blue Island is a municipality incorporated under the

lawsoftheStateofIllinoisandislocatedwithinCookCounty.
6.

Defendant Michael Cornell is employed by the City of Blue Island as a

policeofficerwiththerankofdeputychiefofpoliceandiscurrentlytheactingChiefof
Police.
7.

At all relevant times, Defendant Cornell acted within the scope of his

employmentandasagentofDefendantCityofBlueIsland.
8.

Defendant Kevin Sisk is employed by the City of Blue Island as a police

officerwiththerankofcommander.
9.

At all relevant times, Defendant Sisk acted within the scope of his

employmentandasagentofDefendantCityofBlueIsland.
FactsRegardingtheRobbieSilvaInvestigation
10.

OnDecember1,2005,ayoungboynamedRobertThomasSilva(Robbie

Silva) was killed in a hitandrun in Blue Island, and the case received significant
mediaattention.

11.

Defendants Cornell and Sisk, who then held the ranks of detective

sergeantandcorporal,weretwooftheofficersassignedtoinvestigatethecase.
12.

During the investigation, a person of interest was identified, and the

personofinterestsgirlfriendwasidentifiedasapotentialwitnesstothecrime.
13.

The girlfriend was also the sister of an individual who held significant

political connections in the City. This individual also owned a towing company that
heldthecontractforpolicetowsandwasonpersonaltermswithDefendantCornell.
14.

Apolygraphinterviewofthegirlfriendwasconducted,duringwhichthe

girlfriendprovidedanalibiforthepersonofinterest.DefendantCornellauthoredand
signed a subsequent report regarding the interview, which stated that the girlfriend
passedthepolygraphandthatsheistellingthetruth.
15.

Due to Defendant Cornells report that the girlfriend had passed the

polygraph,theleadwasnotpursued.
16.

Thecasewentcoldandwasneversolved.

17.

In March 2009, Beth Ann Thomas, the mother of Robbie Silva, contacted

Plaintiff, who was then a detective, and asked him to take a fresh look at the case in
ordertobringhersonsmurderertojustice.
18.

BethAnn Thomas informedPlaintiffthatshe believedthecasehad been

mishandledbyDefendantCornell.

19.

WhenPlaintifflookedforthecaseinthehomicidefiles,however,hewas

unabletolocateit.
20.

Plaintiff searched the archives for police reports related to the case and

wasalsounabletofindthem.
21.

Plaintiff approached thenPolice Chief Douglas Hoglund and informed

himofthemissingfiles.ChiefHoglundsuggestedthatPlaintiffaskDefendantCornell
aboutthemissingfiles.
22.

When Plaintiff approached Defendant Cornell about the matter,

Defendant Cornell admitted that he had the file in his possession and demanded to
knowwhyPlaintiffwasinterestedinthefile.
23.

PlaintifftoldDefendantCornellthatBethAnnThomashadaskedPlaintiff

toreviewthecase,towhichDefendantCornellrespondedtotheeffectof,Thatwoman
needs to get over it. Her son is dead and the offender in the case has likely fled to
Mexico.
24.

PlaintiffaskedDefendantCornellforthefilenonetheless,andDefendant

CornellsaidthathewouldgetthefiletoPlaintiff.
25.

Defendant Cornell did not provide the file to Plaintiff, but another

detectiveeventuallyobtainedthefilefromDefendantCornell.

26.

Uponreviewingthefile,Plaintiffdiscoveredthattheinvestigativefilehad

not been maintained in accordance with applicable investigative standards. Among

otherthings,Plaintiffdiscoveredthat:
a.

Multipleoriginalreportsweremissingfromthefile;

b.

Reports generated during the investigation had not been

approvedorsubmittedtotherecordsdepartmentforarchival;
c.

Reportsweredeficientandinadequate;

d.

Leadshadnotbeenexhaustedorfollowedupon;

e.

Noleadsheethadbeencreatedforthecase,andtherewas

nomanagementsystemforthecase;
f.

Thefiledidnotcontaininformationrelatedtothepersonof

interest.
27.

Plaintiff notified Chief Hoglund of the files deficiencies, and Chief

HoglundauthorizedPlaintifftoinformallyresumeinvestigationofthecaseastimeand
resourcespermitted.
28.

While reinvestigating the case, Plaintiff recovered multiple original

reports that had been missing from the case file, one of which was the original
polygraph report generated by the officer who conducted the polygraph interview on
thepersonofinterestsgirlfriend.

29.

The newly discovered original report stated that the polygraph was

inconclusive.
30.

Theseparatereportthathadalwaysbeenmaintainedinthecasefileand

which had been authored by Defendant Cornell, however, stated that the girlfriend
passedthepolygraphandthatsheistellingthetruth.
31.

Given the falsified police report, the incomplete state of the file, the

missing reports, the failure to follow up on leads, and the girlfriends political
connections, Plaintiff reasonably believed that Defendant Cornell had deliberately
failedtoproperlyinvestigatethecaseandhadillegallyfalsifiedthepolygraphreport.
32.

In or around February 2012, Plaintiff reported his findings to Chief

Hoglund, in particular his reasonable belief that Defendant Cornell had falsified the
reportregardingthegirlfriendspolygraphinterview.
33.

Chief Hoglund authorized Plaintiff to continue to investigate the case

quietlyandtonotifyhimwhenthecasewasreadytobeformallyreopened.
34.

Hoglund also authorized Plaintiff to enlist the assistance of the South

SuburbanMajorCrimesTaskForce(SSMCTF).
35.

Plaintiff contacted Illinois State Police Master Sergeant Tom Weatherald,

commander of the SSMCTF, and informed him of Plaintiffs findings relative to the
RobbieSilvacaseandPlaintiffsreasonablebeliefthatDefendantCornellhadfalsifieda
criticalpolicereport.
6

36.

FormalreopeningofthecasewassetforthefirstweekofApril2012.On

themorningtheSilvacasewastobereopened,atabout2:00a.m.,atruckfromthetow
company,whoseownerwasthebrotherofthepersonofinterestsgirlfriend,wasseen
outsideofDefendantCornellsresidence.
37.

After the investigation was reopened, Plaintiff traveled to Tennessee to

interview witnesses. Subsequently, the owner of the tow company complained to the
policedepartmentabouttheinvestigationandtheinterviews.
38.

Plaintiffalsolearned thatDefendantCornellhad spokenwiththeowner

of the tow company about the reactivation of the case and had then spoken with
witnessesaftertheyhadbeeninterviewedbytheSSMCTF.
39.

Thereopeningoftheinvestigationresultedintheidentificationofaclear

suspect,whowasthesamepersonofinterestwhohadpreviouslybeenidentified.Due
to the passageof time,however,thesuspectcould not be located and the suspect has
neverbeencharged.
FactsRegardingRetaliationAgainstPlaintiff
40.

In May 2012, Chief Hoglund resigned under political pressure after he

triedtoremoveDefendantCornellfromhispositionasdeputychief.
41.

PhilContreraswasappointedthenewchiefofpolice.

42.

DefendantCornellremainedasthedeputychiefandimmediatelyordered

thatthedetectivedivisionwouldhenceforthreporttohim.
7

43.

Shortly after Contreras appointment, Plaintiff met with Contreras to

updatehimoncurrentinvestigations,includingthereactivatedRobbieSilvamatterand
PlaintiffsbeliefsaboutthehandlingofthecasebyDefendantCornell,inparticularthe
falsepolicereportDefendantCornellauthoredinthecase.
44.

While Plaintiff stated that he would work on the case only as time and

resources allowed and that he would stay on top of any incoming cases, Contreras
directedPlaintifftoletsleepingdogslieandorderedhimtoconcentrateonnewcases
instead.
45.

Inthesummerof2012,PlaintifflearnedthatBethAnnThomashadfileda

complaint with the Cook County States Attorney regarding Defendant Cornells
handlingoftheRobbieSilvacase.
46.

Plaintiff met with the chief prosecutor of the Cook County States

Attorneys Public Integrity Unit and reported his findings in the case, including his
findingsregardingthefalsepolicereportfiledinthecasebyDefendantCornell.
47.

Soonafterward,DefendantCornellbeganquestioningPlaintiffshandling

ofcasesassignedtohimandaccusinghimofminordisciplinaryinfractions.
48.

InSeptember2012,DefendantCornellsignificantlyreducedtheresources

availabletothedetectivedivisioninanefforttodiscouragethereinvestigationofcold
cases, including the Robbie Silva case, and detectives within the division requested
reassignmentduetotheonerousworkingconditions.
8

49.

On or about September 28, 2012, Plaintiff transferred from the detective

divisiontothemidnightpatrolshift.Plaintiffassumedcommandofthemidnightpatrol
shiftonSeptember29,2012.
50.

Defendant Cornell began targeting Plaintiff for unwarranted discipline,

includingbutnotlimitedto:
a. AccusingPlaintiffofworkingunauthorizedovertimeontheSilvacase;
b. Accusing Plaintiff of failing to notify the chain of command about
incidentsinvolvingotherofficers;
c. Accusing Plaintiff of making disparaging statements in relation to the
staffingchangesinthedetectivedivision;and
d. AccusingPlaintiffofimproperlyinvestigatingcases.
51.

InMay2013,PhilContrerasretiredaschiefofpolice,andtheCitybegana

90day evaluation period to find a new chief. The 90day evaluation period expired
withouttheCityappointinganewchiefofpolice.
52.

InAugust2013,DefendantCornellbecameactingchiefofpolice.

53.

WhileDefendantCornellhadbeenconsideredasapossiblechiefofpolice,

members of the City Council refused to appoint him as chief of police because of
concernsabouthishandlingoftheSilvamatter.
54.

Defendant Cornell was aware that this was the reason he was not

appointedchiefofpolice.
9

55.

Defendant Cornell was aware that Plaintiff had reported his findings

regardingDefendantCornellsillegalfalsificationofthepolygraphinterviewreportto
formerChiefHoglund,theSSMCTF,andtheCookCountyStatesAttorneysoffice.
56.

Prior to becoming acting chief of police, Defendant Cornell did not have

theauthoritytoissuedisciplinetoofficers.
57.

After becoming acting chief of police and gaining authority to discipline

officers,DefendantCornellinitiatedacampaignofunlawfulandunjustifieddiscipline
againstPlaintiff,including:
a. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of mishandling an internal investigation
involving another officer that Defendant Cornell required Plaintiff to
conduct;
b. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of submitting improper overtime, comp time,
anddayoffrequests;
c. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of failing to properly notify the detective
divisionregardingadeathinvestigation;
d. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of failure to properly inspect the police
departmentkennels;
e. Falsely accusing Plaintiff of failing to properly notify the chain of
commandaboutauseofforceincident.

10

58.

InNovember2013,DefendantCornellcreatedthepositionofcommander,

whichwastobeanadministrative/managementpositionbetweentheranksofdeputy
chiefandpatrolsergeant.
59.

Defendant Sisk was appointed commander and assumed the position in

December2013.
60.

Defendant Sisk, at the direction of Defendant Cornell, initiated three

separate formal investigations of Plaintiff in relation to Defendant Cornells false and

unjustifiedaccusationsagainstPlaintiffandsubsequentlyinterrogatedPlaintiffonthree
separateoccasionsregardingDefendantCornellsaccusations.
61.

Immediatelyuponconclusionofthesecondinterrogation,DefendantSisk

notifiedPlaintiffofyetanotherformalinvestigationandalsoinformedPlaintiffthathe
wasbeingissueda90daysuspensionwithoutpaybyDefendantCornellinrelationto
thefirstformalinvestigation.
62.

No officer in the history of the Blue Island Police Department had ever

beensuspendedformorethan30days.
63.

The only prior discipline Plaintiff had ever received had occurred more

thantenyearsearlier.
64.

Defendant Cornell justified the suspension by relying on numerous

alleged prior disciplinary infractions that had never been documented and were not
containedinPlaintiffspersonnelfile.
11

65.

Asaresultoftheinterrogation,theexcessiveandunjustifiedsuspension,

andthenotificationofyetanotherbaselessformalinquiry,Plaintiffbecameillandhad
totakeamedicalleaveofabsence.
66.

Among other things, Plaintiff experienced heart palpitations and

shortnessofbreaththatrequiredmedicalcare,andPlaintiffsufferedpanicattackswhen
hereceivedphonecallsoriginatingfromthepolicestation.
67.

OnJuly9,2014,Plaintiffreturnedtoworkfrommedicalleave.

68.

DefendantSiskorderedPlaintifftoreporttohisofficeimmediatelyupon

arrival at work. When he arrived, Defendant Sisk served Plaintiff with an amended
notice of 90day suspension without pay, effective immediately, and demanded that
Plaintiffturnoverhisbadge,uniform,andidentification.
69.

Defendant Sisk also served Plaintiff with an amended notice of

interrogationregardingthethirdformalinquiry.
70.

OnJuly28,2014,DefendantSiskinterrogatedPlaintiffforthethirdtime.

71.

On October 7, 2014, Plaintiff completed his 90day suspension without

72.

When Plaintiff reported for duty on October 7, 2014, Defendant Sisk

pay.

orderedPlaintifftoreporttohisofficeimmediately.

12

73.

DefendantSiskservedPlaintiffwithnoticeofanother90daysuspension

without pay by Defendant Cornell in relation to the second formal inquiry, effective
immediately.
74.

Thesecond90daysuspensionwasnotjustifiedbyeitherfactorlaw.

75.

DefendantSiskorderedPlaintifftodepartthepremisesimmediately.
COUNTI
ViolationoftheIllinoisWhistleblowerAct

76.

When Plaintiff reported to Chief Hoglund, the SSMCTF, and the Cook

CountyStatesAttorneysOfficethat DefendantCornell had illegally falsified apolice

reportintheRobbieSilvamatter,Plaintiffwasreportingwhathereasonablybelievedto
beaviolationofastateorfederallaw,rule,orregulation.
77.

Defendants wrongfully disciplined and suspended Plaintiff without pay

in retaliation for reporting what he reasonably believed to be a violation of a state or

federallaw,rule,orregulation.
78.

Defendants Cornell and Sisk each made, took part in, assisted in, or

participated in the decision to investigate Plaintiff and to discipline and suspend

Plaintiffwithoutpay.
79.

Defendants Cornell and Sisk knew that they were investigating,

discipliningandsuspendingPlaintiffwithoutpayforunlawfulretaliatoryreasonsand
notbecauseofhisworkperformance.
13

80.

Defendants disciplined and suspended Plaintiff in violation of rights

guaranteedtohimbytheIllinoisWhistleblowerAct,740ILCS174/15.
81.

As a result of Defendants unlawful actions, Plaintiff has suffered

substantial losses, including, but not limited to, lost wages and benefits, mental and
emotionalanguish,andembarrassmentandhumiliation.
WHEREFORE,PlaintiffpraysforjudgmentagainstDefendantsinanamountin
excess of $50,000 and such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable,
includingbutnotlimitedtocompensatorydamages,backpay,frontpay,reinstatement
tohispriorposition,apermanentinjunction,prejudgmentinterest,lostfuturewages,
future pecuniary damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and
litigationexpensesasallowedbylaw.
COUNTII
IntentionalInflictionofEmotionalDistress
82.

Defendants Cornell and Sisks actions enumerated above were extreme

andoutrageous.
83.

Defendant Cornell and Sisk knew that there was a high probability that

their conduct would inflict severe emotional distress on Plaintiff and they willfully,
wantonly,andrecklesslydisregardedthatprobability.
84.

Atallrelevanttimes,DefendantsCornellandSiskwereactingwithinthe

scopeoftheiremploymentandasagentsofDefendantCityofBlueIsland.
14

85.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has

sufferedsevereemotionaldistress.
WHEREFORE,PlaintiffpraysforjudgmentagainstDefendantsinanamountin
excess of $50,000 and such other relief as the Court may deem just or equitable,
including but not limited to compensatory damages, a permanent injunction, pre
judgment interest, lost future wages, future pecuniary damages, punitive damages,
reasonableattorneysfees,costs,andlitigationexpensesasallowedbylaw.

RespectfullySubmitted,

ISMAELHARO

DanaL.Kurtz,Esq.
JamesG.Vanzant,Esq.
KURTZLAWOFFICES,LTD.
32BlaineStreet

Hinsdale,Illinois60521
Phone:630.323.9444

Facsimile:630.604.9444
Email:dkurtz@kurtzlaw.us
Email:jvanzant@kurtzlaw.us
FirmNo.43132

s/JamesG.Vanzant

AttorneyforPlaintiff

15