The opinion of the court was delivered by: ARLANDER KEYS, Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Richey Hare joined the Stickney Police Department in 1986. In
2002, he sued the department, as well as the Village of Stickney,
Stickney's Chief of Police (John Zitek), and Stickney's Mayor
(Donald Tabor), alleging that these defendants retaliated against
him because he uncovered and exposed corruption within the Police
Department and within the Village. Specifically, he claims that
the defendants harassed and intimidated him, going so far as to
attempt to trump up a sexual assault case against him, all in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and in furtherance of a conspiracy
to violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case is before the Court on a
motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants. Factual Background
A. Richey Hare, John Zitek & the Stickney Police Department
Richey Hare has served as a member of the Stickney Police
Department since 1986. (Hare Dep. 6/13/03 pp. 59, 70). He served
initially as an auxiliary or reserve police officer, was promoted
up through the ranks, and eventually attained the rank of
Lieutenant. (Hare Dep. 6/13/03 pp. 59, 70). In May of 1999, he
became "Commander" when the previous Commander died suddenly; the
Commander position, which is sometimes referred to as the "Chief
of Detectives" and was, at that time, second in command only to
the Chief, was created under John Zitek, who has served as
Stickney's Chief of Police since June 1993. (Hare Dep. 6/13/03
pp. 70-72; Zitek Dep. 6/23/04 pp. 5, 17, 27-28, 65-67;
Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 Rules and Regulations of Stickney Police
Department, Table of Organization).*fn1
Chief Zitek recommended that Mr. Hare be promoted to the
Commander post because, in his view, Mr. Hare was "a very good
officer," he was "competent" and "bright." (Zitek Deposition p.
68). Despite this endorsement, it is clear that there is no love lost between Chief Zitek and Mr. Hare. The parties agree that the
relationship between the two was, at least after Mr. Hare became
Commander, frosty. And both parties agree that, to the extent it
was intact at the time, the relationship between Mr. Hare and
Chief Zitek totally broke down on July 17, 2000.
B. The Heather Hanlon Incident
That day, Mr. Hare returned to work after a vacation and
learned that Heather Hanlon, a radio dispatcher who had been
hired by Chief Zitek in 1997, had forged his computer signature
to run a criminal background check through the National Crime
Information Center. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p. 198; Hanlon Dep. p. 8).
When Mr. Hare confirmed that Ms. Hanlon had used his name for a
criminal background check, he reported her conduct to Chief Zitek
and requested Ms. Hanlon's resignation, as well as a letter from
Ms. Hanlon stating that she used Mr. Hare's name to run a
background check without his authorization. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03
pp. 204-205). According to Mr. Hare, Chief Zitek initially agreed
with him. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p. 205). Mr. Hare then called Ms.
Hanlon at her house and asked for her letter of resignation,
which she brought to the Police Department within an hour. (Hare
Dep. pp. 205-207).
Mr. Hare then made a copy of Ms. Hanlon's letter and brought it
to Chief Zitek's office. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p. 211). At that time, Chief Zitek advised Mr. Hare that he had decided not to
fire Ms. Hanlon, but that he had decided instead to suspend her
for two months. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p. 212). Mr. Hare replied that
he already had her letter of resignation and that he was not
willing to accept any lesser punishment for her than that. (Hare
Dep. pp. 8/13/03 pp. 212-213). Mr. Hare maintained that if Ms.
Hanlon did not resign, the only other alternative would be to
prosecute her criminally, because her conduct constituted a
felony. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 pp. 213-214). Mr. Hare and Chief Zitek
continued to argue about whether Mr. Hare would be able to bring
criminal charges. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 214-217). Finally, according
to Mr. Hare's testimony, Chief Zitek stated that the only way Ms.
Hanlon was going to jail was if Chief Zitek went with her, and
Mr. Hare replied that if Chief Zitek would obstruct her arrest,
he would have to go to jail as well. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 pp. 217,
223). Mr. Hare testified that, at that point, Chief Zitek said
that he was going to report Mr. Hare to the Mayor, and he stormed
out of the office. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p. 223). After Chief Zitek,
Mr. Hare left the police station. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 pp.
223-224). Mr. Hare testified that both he and Chief Zitek were
speaking loudly during the conversation, with the door to Chief
Zitek's office open, so that many people could hear them arguing.
(Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p. 217-218). Up to the point where they both left the Chief's office, the
testimony of Mr. Hare and Chief Zitek is substantially the same.
Their testimony diverges substantially, however, about how the
events unfolded after that point.
According to Mr. Hare, after he left, Chief Zitek paged him and
ordered him to return to the station. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p. 290).
Mr. Hare went to Chief Zitek's office, where he found not only
Chief Zitek, but also Donald Tabor, who has served as the Mayor
of the Village of Stickney since 1999, and James Dolezal, who was
once Stickney's Chief of Police and who now serves as a Village
Trustee and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees' Police
Committee. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 pp. 290-291; Tabor Dep. 7/23/04 pp.
14-15; Dolezal Dep. pp. 10-12, 14). Mr. Hare testified that, when
he walked into the office, Chief Zitek started screaming that he
was the Chief of Police, while Mr. Hare was nobody, and that if
Mr. Hare did not like how Chief Zitek ran his department, he
could leave. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 pp. 292, 295-296). The meeting
then ended. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p. 296).
Chief Zitek's recollection of the conversation is different.
Chief Zitek testified that Mr. Hare threatened to arrest him,
that Mr. Hare was angry, proclaiming that he, not Chief Zitek,
should be the Chief of Police and that Chief Zitek was a Chicago
cop who did not belong at the Stickney Police Department. (Zitek Dep. 6/23/04 p. 137, 127-128). Chief Zitek testified that Mr.
Hare "lost it," and "went totally ape, totally nuts"; he
testified that Mr. Hare called him "all sorts of names," and told
him that he would use his connections with Trustee Dolezal to
remove the Chief from office and take over his job. (Zitek Dep.
6/23/04 pp. 127-128). Chief Zitek testified that Mr. Hare had
never spoken to him in this manner before. (Zitek Dep. 6/23/05 p.
133). Mr. Hare denies Chief Zitek's assertion about what happened
during the July 17 meeting. (Hare Dep. 4/28/04 pp. 222-223).
Trustee Dolezal, who confirmed that he was present during this
meeting, would seem to side with Mr. Hare: he testified that Mr.
Hare was respectful and used the word "sir" when referring to
Chief Zitek, and he testified that Mr. Hare never said he wanted
to be Chief or that he wanted to get rid of Chief Zitek. (Dolezal
Dep. pp. 46, 70-71). Mayor Tabor similarly confirmed that he was
present during this meeting, and he similarly testified that Mr.
Hare referred to Chief Zitek as "sir" throughout the encounter.
(Tabor Dep. 1/26/05 p. 27). On the other hand, Mayor Tabor also
testified that Mr. Hare told Chief Zitek that he was after Chief
Zitek's job. (Tabor Dep. 1/26/05 pp. 27).
Mr. Hare testified that, after the meeting, he returned to his office and spoke with the Mayor about certain improprieties
within the police department that he and some other police
officers were concerned about. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p. 299,
301-306). According to Mr. Hare, Mayor Tabor responded that he
would look into the issues, but that the incident involving
Heather Hanlon was over, that he would accept Ms. Hanlon's
resignation. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p. 306).
Mr. Hare testified that, after talking with Mayor Tabor both
about the Heather Hanlon incident and about his perceptions of
corruption in the department, he called an attorney who had
helped him out in the past to report the events that had just
transpired; he testified that he contacted the attorney because
he "knew that Chief Zitek was going to come after me for what had
just happened]." (Hare Dep. 8/18/03 p. 260).
C. Mr. Hare's Allegations of Corruption in Chief Zitek's
In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants focus
primarily on the Heather Hanlon incident. They argue that, to the
extent Mr. Hare was treated badly by Chief Zitek or by the
Village, that mistreatment was a result of animosity created
because of the Heather Hanlon incident. Mr. Hare argues
otherwise; in his view, the story begins not in July 2000 when
the Heather Hanlon incident occurred, but in May of 1999. According to Mr. Hare, this case really begins shortly after
Chief Zitek appointed him to the post of Commander. At that time,
Mr. Hare assumed, among other responsibilities, the
responsibility to maintain and control the police department's
evidence room. (Hare Dep. 6/13/03 pp. 73-74). In that capacity,
upon assuming the role of commander, Mr. Hare immediately
performed a preliminary audit of the room. (Hare Dep. 6/13/03 p.
78). At his deposition, Mr. Hare testified that he found
irregularities, such as unmarked evidence, evidence of a
suspicious nature, and lack of uniformity. (Hare Dep. 6/13/03 p.
77). Mr. Hare also testified that, when he reported to Chief
Zitek that he found discrepancies, Chief Zitek laughed and told
Mr. Hare not to worry about it, that it was over, and that "it
lies with the dead man" presumably meaning the previous
Commander who had died and whose post Mr. Hare had assumed. (Hare
Dep. 6/13/03 p. 91). Mr. Hare testified that he wanted to bring
in the Illinois State Police for an independent audit, but that
Chief Zitek ordered him not to. (Hare Dep. 6/13/03 p. 99-100).
After Mr. Hare conducted his preliminary audit, he attended a
one week Property and Evidence Management course at the
Naperville Police Department. (Hare Dep. 6/13/03 p. 107;
Plaintiff's Exhibit 18, Evidence Room Discrepancies). Mr. Hare testified that, after the course, he again spoke with Chief Zitek
about bringing in an outside agency for an independent audit, an
idea Chief Zitek again shot down. (Hare Dep. 6/13/03 p. 111). Mr.
Hare testified that Chief Zitek repeated that the issue was over
and that it "lies with the dead man." (Hare Dep. 6/13/03 p.
110-111). Mr. Hare testified that he and Captain Elias, a fellow
officer, then conducted a complete audit and determined that:
evidence was in a state of disarray; some evidence was missing,
including a kilo of cocaine, some silver and gold coins, and
other money; a lot of evidence was unaccounted for; and they had
"no idea what half of the stuff was." (Hare Dep. 6/13/03 pp.
119-122). Various officers, including Sergeant Philippon, Jeffrey
Walik, and Joseph Kretch, testified that Mr. Hare and Captain
Elias discussed with them the missing evidence. (Philippon Dep.
p. 33; Walik Dep. p. 11; Kretch Dep. p. 196).
Chief Zitek's testimony, on the other hand, differs
substantially from Mr. Hare's on the point of the evidence
locker. In his deposition, Chief Zitek denied that he ever
refused Mr. Hare's request to bring in an outside agency. (Zitek
Dep. 6/23/04 p. 77). In fact, he testified that, after the final
audit, Mr. Hare reported to him that everything was perfect and
there was nothing wrong. (Zitek Dep. 6/23/04 p. 73).
Beyond the evidence locker irregularities, Mr. Hare also testified that he and fellow police officers suspected that
criminal activity was happening at the Police Department because
large amounts of money that previously went to the Treasurer's
Office were now going through Chief Zitek. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p.
288). The officers suspected that Chief Zitek misappropriated
money received by the Police Department through parking tickets,
bail postings, prostitution stings, etc. (Philippon Dep. p. 9;
Walik Dep. p. 7). In fact, officer Walik testified that, on
several occasions, he saw Chief Zitek open parking ticket
envelopes and remove the cash out of them, commenting that he
needed money to take his wife out for dinner. (Walik Dep. pp.
Mr. Hare also testified that he saw Chief Zitek open envelopes
containing money for parking violations, fines, and bonds, and
put the cash he took out of the envelopes into his desk drawer.
(Hare Dep. 8/13/03 pp. 246-247). Similarly, Dora Madsen, the
Village Treasurer, testified that, on several occasions, she
witnessed Chief Zitek take cash from parking ticket funds and put
it in his pockets. (Madsen Dep. p. 78).
The officers also testified that they were concerned that Chief
Zitek kept part of the money that the Village received for off
duty details performed by the police officers. Before Chief Zitek
changed the policy, police officers were paid by a check from the Village for working off duty details on special events.
(Hare Dep. 6/13/03 p. 186). Chief Zitek started the practice of
paying officers in cash. (Hare Dep. 6/13/03 p. 186). Chief Zitek
admitted that officers were sometimes paid in cash for their off
duty details; he also admitted that he did not know whether taxes
were withheld from officers who received such cash payments.
(Zitek Dep. 6/25/04 p. 282). Officer Figueroa testified that he
discovered that Chief Zitek received compensation for the Laramie
Fire Watch detail, where police officers watch the garbage dump,
even though he was not aware that Chief Zitek ever worked that
detail. (Figueroa Dep. p. 10-12, 16, 18). Mr. Hare testified
that, on at least two occasions, Chief Zitek endorsed checks
issued to the Village of Stickney as payments for off duty
details, ordered Mr. Hare to cash the checks at a bank, through a
personal friend of his, and then took the cash from the checks,
paying the officers who worked those events in cash. (Plaintiff's
Exhibit 20: Hare Cook County Grand Jury Testimony, pp. 24-31).
Mr. Hare testified that part of the cashed checks included
reimbursements to the Village for use of its squad cars, and that
the entire amount of the checks was supposed to be processed
through the Village. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 20: Hare Cook County
Grand Jury Testimony p. 30).
Mr. Hare, Officers Walik and Kretch, Sergeant Philippon and Captain Elias met several times to discuss their suspicions of
corruption at the Police Department. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p. 235).
Mr. Hare testified that he first met with an attorney to discuss
these suspicions as early as July 5, 2000. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p.
231). However, Mr. Hare also testified that, because Chief Zitek
instituted a policy prohibiting police officers from speaking
with Village officials, he did not report the alleged misconduct
to Mayor Tabor until July 17, 2000, after the altercation
involving the Heather Hanlon incident. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p.
The evidence shows that, even before the Heather Hanlon
incident, Mr. Hare met several times with other police officers
to discuss their suspicions of corruption at the Police
Department. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p. 253). The officers also shared
their suspicious with various attorneys. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p.
235). At the time, the officers were unsure what agency was the
appropriate body to investigate the alleged improprieties at the
Police Department. (Hare Dep. 8/13/03 p. 231).
D. The State's Attorney & The Grand Jury
On August 16, 2000, Mr. Hare and other members of the Stickney
Police Department namely, Sergeant Philippon, Officer Kretch
and Officer Walik finally met with the Cook County State's Attorney's Office ("SAO") to report their suspicions.
(Hare Dep. 8/13/05 p. 258; Philippon Dep. p. 8, 23; Kretch Dep.
p. 13). At the time, Chief Zitek was the main subject of the
officers' complaint. (Kretch Dep. p. 147; Philippon Dep. pp. 10,
Sometime around October of 2000, the SAO started a grand jury
investigation of the Police Department. (Stratton Dep. 11/19/03
p. 11). Karyn Stratton, a 19-year veteran with the Public
Integrity Unit, was assigned to the case. (Stratton Dep. 11/19/03
p. 7). Ms. Stratton testified that her investigation revealed
some evidence of Chief Zitek's misconduct to support the
officers' allegations. (Stratton Dep. 11/19/03 p. 61). As a
result of the grand jury investigation, Ms. Stratton uncovered
theft at the Police Department in excess of $200,000. (Stratton
Dep. p. 120). Ms. Stratton testified that the missing money
consisted of cash taken from bonds, police fines, prostitution
stings, etc. (Stratton Dep. p. 120). According to Ms. Stratton's
testimony, she did not indict Chief Zitek, because, even though
she believed he had stolen money from the department, given her
experience with the Village, the Village would hinder her
investigation, and she would ultimately be unable to prove Chief
Zitek's corruption and theft beyond a reasonable doubt. (Stratton
Dep. pp. 136-137). It is clear that, at some point, Chief Zitek and the other
Village officials learned about the SAO's investigation. But the
parties disagree on when they learned about it and when they
learned that Mr. Hare was involved with it. The defendants argue
that "there is no testimony or other evidence" that Chief Zitek
knew that Mr. Hare was one of the "whistleblowers." (Defendant's
SOF ¶ 118). Mr. Hare, on the other hand, points to certain
portions of deposition transcripts that suggest that Chief Zitek
knew, from the early stages of the SAO investigation, that Mr.
Hare was one of the "whistleblowers." (Plaintiff's Response to ¶
118 of Defendants' SOF).
For example, Mr. Hare testified that, on October 18, 2000, he
met with Trustee Dolezal and informed him about the SAO's
investigation of the Police Department. (Hare Dep. 4/28/04 pp.
213-214). Trustee Dolezal testified that, after his conversation
with Mr. Hare, he went to the Village Treasurer, Dora Madsen, and
informed her that the SAO was conducting an investigation, in
which she should cooperate, and that Chief Zitek was the target
of the investigation. (Dolezal Dep. p. 33). Trustee Dolezal also
testified that he might have reported to Mayor Tabor that Mr.
Hare had gone to the SAO. (Dolezal Dep. p. 65).
Additionally, when Ms. Stratton interviewed Ms. Madsen at the
Police Department in October 2000, Mayor Tabor and Chief Zitek told her that they had the right to know what the interview
was about. (Stratton Dep. 11/19/03 pp. 107-108). According to Ms.
Stratton, Chief Zitek told her that he knew about the
investigation, because one of his friends received a subpoena.
(Stratton Dep. 11/19/03 p. 107; 12/13/04 p. 83). Ms. Madsen
testified that, after Ms. Stratton interviewed her, Ms. Madsen
informed Mayor Tabor and the trustees at the Village what the
conversation was about. (Madsen Dep. p. 18).
Mayor Tabor, on the other hand, testified that, while he found
out about the investigation the day Ms. Stratton came to
interview Ms. Madsen, he learned about the nature of the
investigation only several months later, from Trustee Dolezal.
(Tabor Dep. 7/23/04 pp. 45, 48). Mayor Tabor also denies that he
asked Ms. Stratton anything about the investigation or the
individuals involved. (Tabor Dep. 7/23/04 pp. 47-48).
Mr. Hare testified that, on or about November 10, 2000, he
received a telephone call from Robert Rivkin, an attorney who was
working for the Village. (Hare Affidavit ¶ 13). Mr. Hare
testified that Mr. Rivkin told him that he was an attorney
retained by the Village regarding the corruption investigation,
and that he wanted to meet with Mr. Hare to learn the basis of
Mr. Hare's knowledge about the allegations of corruption. (Hare
Affidavit ¶ 14). Mr. Hare informed Mr. Rivkin about his grand jury testimony and the knowledge he had of corrupt practices.
(Hare Affidavit ¶¶ 15-18). On November 28, Mr. Hare had a second
meeting with Mr. Rivkin at the Village Hall, where Mr. Rivkin
advised him that he had told Mayor Tabor and the Village Trustees
about Mr. Hare's allegations of corruption. (Hare Affidavit ¶¶
Donald Kreger, the main attorney for the Village of Stickney,
testified that Robert Rivkin was asked by Mayor Tabor on behalf
of the Village to conduct an investigation into allegations of
corrupt practices by Village personnel. (Kreger Affidavit ¶¶
2-3). Mr. Kreger also testified that Mr. Rivkin communicated the
results of his investigation to various Village officials.
(Kreger Affidavit ¶ 3).
Meanwhile, the subject of corruption at the Stickney Police
Department was picked up by a local newspaper. Susan Locander, a
freelance reporter, authored an article entitled Kreger:
Stickney Won't Punish the "Whistleblower" published on March 28,
2001. (Locander Dep. pp. 5-6, 30; Plaintiff's Exhibit 42 2
newspaper articles written by Ms. Locander about the Police
Department investigation). Ms. Locander testified that she
remembered Mayor Tabor saying that Mr. Rivkin told him about the
officers' concerns in October 2001. (Locander Dep. pp. 27, 30).
Ms. Locander also wrote in her article that the Village had
received anonymous tips about the identities of the whistleblowers around
the time the SAO investigation started. (Locander Dep. p. 33;
Plaintiff's Exhibit 42).
E. Mr. Hare's Allegations of Retaliation, Intimidation &
In his complaint, Mr. Hare asserts that he was a victim of
retaliation as a result of his speaking out to the SAO about his
suspicions of corruption at the Stickney Police Department.
(First Amended Complaint, ¶ 40). Some of the alleged acts of
retaliation include the Village's failure to provide him with
legal representation during grand jury proceedings, changes in
duties and responsibilities, the initiation of criminal charges
against Mr. Hare, the pursuit of the petition to revoke Mr.
Hare's firearm license, and the interference with the Stickney
Police Pension Board hearings and operations to prevent and later
to reverse Mr. Hare's line of duty disability. (First Amended
Complaint ¶ 42). The Court will discuss the details of these
Mr. Hare first claims that the Village retaliated against him
by failing to provide him with legal representation during the
grand jury testimony. On October 25, 2000, grand jury subpoenas
were issued for the testimony of Mr. Hare and several other
officers. (Plaintiff's exhibit 19 Cook County Grand Jury Subpoenas). Mr. Hare alleges that before their grand jury
testimony, the Village offered subpoenaed officers legal
representation, but that he unlike the others received no
such offer. (Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition to the motion
for summary judgment, p. 18). For example, Mayor Tabor called
Officer Fox to inform him that the Village would provide him with
a lawyer (Fox Dep. pp. 45-46); Chief Zitek called Mark Kozelka
and referred him to Mayor Tabor to discuss his legal
representation (Kozelka Dep. pp. 11, 13). Mr. Hare testified that
nobody from the Police Department called him or paged him after
the Department received his subpoena. (Hare Dep. 4/28/04 p. 126).
Mr. Hare also claims that his duties and responsibilities were
significantly changed after his grand jury testimony. Mr. Hare
testified that, on or about December 1, 2000, Chief Zitek
transferred him from the Detective Unit to the position of watch
commander and reassigned him to patrol duties. (Hare Affidavit ¶
11). Before the transfer, Mr. Hare worked regular shifts from 8
a.m. until 4 p.m., with weekends and holidays off and almost
unlimited overtime opportunities. (Hare Affidavit ¶¶ 8-9;
Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 Chief Zitek's memo assigning Mr. Hare to
the 8-4 shift Monday through Friday). Mr. Hare also testified
that, prior to December 1, 2000, he was provided with an unmarked, take-home police car, which he drove 24 hours a day;
and he also had a Police Department cell phone and pager. (Hare
Affidavit ¶ 10). According to Mr. Hare's testimony, before
December 1, 2000, he was in charge of the Evidence Technical
Unit, Latent Fingerprint Unit, K-9 Unit, Auxiliary Police Unit,
Police Department Evidence Locker and Crime Suppression Unit, as
well as the Badge Grand Program. (Hare Affidavit ¶ 8). Mr. Hare
testified that, on December 1, 2000, Chief Zitek took away the
unmarked car and stripped Mr. Hare off all of the above duties
and responsibilities. (Hare Affidavit ¶ 11). Instead, after
December 1, 2000, according to Mr. Hare's testimony, he worked
the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift, with limited overtime opportunities.
(Hare Affidavit ¶ 11).
On or about January 18, 2001, Chief Zitek issued a memorandum,
which included changes in shifts and assignments for members of
the Police Department. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 34). Mayor Tabor
testified that Chief Zitek had the authority to make shift
changes. (Tabor Dep. 7/23/04 p. 126). As a result of the changes,
many officers filed grievances with the Union and the changes
were, for the most part, overruled. (Fox Dep. pp. 71-72; Kozelka
Dep. pp. 35-36; Kretch Dep. p. 230). The changes Chief Zitek made
to Mr. Hare's assignment were not overruled, despite Mr. Hare's
multiple requests to Chief Zitek on December 1, 2000, on January 24, 2001, and on January 26, 2001, for an explanation
as to why his shift was changed and for a transfer back to the
day shift. (Mr. Hare's letters: Plaintiff's Exhibits 33, 37, 38).
On January 29, 2001, Chief Zitek issued another memorandum,
stating that Mr. Hare's assignment to the 3-11 shift was
permanent. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 39).
Chief Zitek does not dispute that he changed Mr. Hare's duties,
but he testified that he did so because of the Heather Hanlon
incident on July 17, 2000. (Zitek Dep. 6/25/04 p. 440). Chief
Zitek also testified that, after the Heather Hanlon incident, he
wanted Mr. Hare as far away from him as possible, and that he
felt that he couldn't trust Mr. Hare. (Zitek Dep. 6/23/05pp. 143,
On April 10, 2001, after Mayor Tabor's political party won the
Village elections, Chief Zitek wrote a memorandum to Mayor Tabor
and the Board of Trustees, requesting that the rank of Commander
be eliminated, and that Mr. Hare be returned to his civil service
rank of Lieutenant. (Tabor Dep. 1/26/05 pp. 21; Plaintiff's
exhibit 40). In this memorandum, Chief Zitek explained his
request by referring to the argument he had with Mr. Hare in
July, 2000. (Plaintiff's exhibit 40). On April 19, 2001, Mr. Hare
wrote to Chief Zitek to clarify his duties, and in the letter, he
told Chief Zitek that he considered his change in job duties to be an act of retaliation. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 41).
Mr. Hare never received a response to this letter. (Zitek Dep.
6/25/04 p. 465).
Mr. Hare also alleges that Chief Zitek retaliated against him
by trying to force criminal charges against him as a result of a
comment Mr. Hare made during a victim interview at the police
station. (First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 30-35). On December 6, 2000,
Kim Koudelka came into the Stickney police station claiming that
she had been the victim of an assault. (Koudelka Dep. p. 10). Ms.
Koudelka stated that she managed to get away from her attacker
and drove to the police station, where she spoke with Mr. Hare.
(Koudelka Dep. p. 11). Police officers made a sketch of the
assailant based on her description, and then took photographs of
her injuries. (Ms. Koudelka Dep. p. 12). During the time the
photographs were taken, Mr. Hare was present in the room and
asked, jokingly, whether Ms. Koudelka would like some
wallet-sized photographs. (Koudelka Dep. pp. 13-14). Ms. Koudelka
testified that the comment made her angry, but that everything
made her angry at that time; she testified that the comment did
not make her uncomfortable. (Koudelka Dep. p. 14).
Theresa Sheputis, Ms. Koudelka's mother, saw Chief Zitek during
municipal elections in April, 2001, and asked him about the
investigation of her daughter's assault. (Sheputis Dep. pp. 8-10). Ms. Koudelka testified that, after the
conversation with her mother, Chief Zitek called her more than 20
times in an effort to get her to come to the police station.
(Koudelka Dep. p. 147). Ms. Koudelka testified that Chief Zitek
was asking her about the wallet size comment made by Mr. Hare ...