Ralph Hrobowski v. State of Illinois

OPINION

Sprague, C.J.

This matter comes before the Court on the Complaint of Claimant, Ralph Hrobowski, against Respondent, State of Illinois, Illinois Department of Corrections, seeking damages for lost compensation in the amount of $753.67.

THE FACTS

I. Claimant's Testimony

Claimant, Ralph Hrobowksi, appeared and testified that on March 18, 2004, his employer, Mr. Lopac, and his staff, spoke to all of the inmates in the Corrections Industry Unit and were told that they should take any items that did not belong to the Industries Unit with them back to their living units that day because there would be a routine shakedown conducted.

[*144] The Claimant testified that per Mr. Lopac's request, the Claimant took peanut butter, fish sticks, popcorn and edible items that Mr. Lopac would normally allow them to eat with him back to his living unit.

He did not take anything else to his living unit.

The next day when the Claimant returned to work, he was approached by Supervisor Ron Smith who stated that during the routine shakedown, a razor was found in the Claimant's work area and that the Claimant would have to be investigated by the Internal Affairs Unit as a routine investigation.

Approximately 45 minutes after Supervisor Ron Smith told Claimant about the razor, the Claimant was summoned to Internal Affairs and asked a number of questions regarding the razor which was allegedly found in his work area.

The Claimant

testified that after answering a couple of questions, Mr. Bach, from the Internal Affairs' Unit, had specifically told him that there was not really an issue because Mr. Lopac and the staff also had access to the area in which the razor was found and that the razor was no longer an issue with Internal Affairs.

Claimant then testified that Mr. Bach wanted to talk to Claimant pertaining to an informant in the correctional center.

Mr. Bach stated that he had received a letter from an informant saying that Claimant was involved in a fight that occurred in the Honor Dome Living Unit.

Claimant was then escorted to segregation and charged with fighting on March 19, 2004.

On March 23, 2004, Claimant was found not guilty by the Adjustment Committee with the recommendation that the ticket be expunged and that Claimant be sent back to the living unit and work as per departmental rules.

Claimant testified that while two recommendations were honored, one being his return to the Honor Dome and that the disciplinary ticket was expunged, Claimant testified that he did not return to his same job at the Industries Unit.

[*145] Claimant testified that he attempted to discuss this matter with his former boss, Mr.

Lopac and that at that time, Mr. Lopac had stated to him that the issue was out of his hands and that he, Mr. Lopac, had nothing to do with it.

Claimant testified that he believed what Mr. Lopac had told to him.

Claimant testified that he learned from speaking with the Assistant Warden Chairman that Warden Steams believed it was necessary to suspend Claimant from his job temporarily.

Claimant testified that he was extremely devastated from being temporarily suspended as he was not returned back to his same job.

According

to Claimant, departmental policies state that when an inmate is found not guilty, he should be returned back to his living unit whenever possible and also to his job.

On July 14, 2004, Claimant testified that he was reinstated to the Industries Unit by the Warden.

After interviewing with Mr. Lopac, Claimant was told that he would be returning to work in Industries as a Porter.

Claimant testified that he was "taken back" by this assignment as there was a severe pay reduction in this assignment versus his prior job in the Industries Unit.

Claimant testified that Mr. Lopac had stated that the position that Claimant held prior to segregation no longer existed at the time of Claimant's return and as such Claimant would be required to go back to the shop as any other worker or a "rehire".

In addition, Mr. Lopac offered another option to Claimant which was to wait for an opening that met Claimant's criteria at a later date.

Claimant testified that this option was never given to him as he believed that he was only given an ultimatum to either return as a Porter or be reassigned.

Claimant indicated that another inmate was given an option and waited three weeks and then was brought back to his same position prior to his leave of absence.

This inmate had requested a leave of absence and was not suspended for any reason.

[*146] Claimant testified that he then took the Porter position and his salary was severely

reduced.

He also stated that another inmate was promoted ahead of him, erroneously, and

upon his second grievance, Claimant was given back pay of approximately $166.00 to

mitigate any damages he received for not being promoted in a timely fashion.

Claimant

specifically testified that he is only seeking compensation for the time when he returned to

the Industries Unit on July 14, 2004 to the February 2005 date in which he then can back to

100% salary.

Claimant took into account the $166.00 in restitution for the prior error of

not promoting him on a timely basis.

Additionally, Claimant also named many inmates

who had left the Industries Unit and returned at the same 100% salary.

Claimant stated

that he determined the exact figure to be $753.67 in damages.

Upon cross-examination, Claimant testified that he did not receive his 100% salary for approximately 6 or 7 months, and that Industries made an error in not promoting him sooner than another inmate.

Claimant then testified that the policy of starting at a Porter position came into effect in approximately the year 2002.

Additionally, Claimant stated that the department rules specifically provide that inmates who are not found guilty of disciplinary infraction may be placed back in their former work position.

Claimant then requested that all documents be admitted into evidence.

II.

Respondent's Testimony

Respondent called Mr. Gary Lopac to testify on behalf of the State of Illinois and the Illinois Department of Corrections.

Mr. Lopac stated that he was employed by Dixon's Correction's Industries Unit, Dixon Correction Center, and had been the Superintendent of Corrections for approximately 19 plus years.

Mr. Lopac stated that his responsibilities included hiring and firing of inmates, supervising inmates and civilian staff and enforcing [*147] the rules of the institution and creating policy as needed for the Corrections Industries Department.

Mr. Lopac described the Corrections Industries Department as an optical laboratory that makes eyeglasses for the Department of Public Aid.

The Unit also helps inmates to earn money while at Dixon and gives them a chance to learn a trade which can be used upon their release from incarceration.

Mr. Lopac stated that he usually has approximately 80-90 inmates per month that work in the Industries Unit and has five staff members underneath him.

Mr. Lopac testified that an inmate may be assigned to the Industries Unit only based upon certain criteria.

Mr. Lopac also stated that they have a rehire policy for inmates that have taken a leave of absence from the Industries Unit.

This policy requires that anyone coming back after a leave of absence would be considered a new hire and would start as a Porter in the Industries Unit.

Mr. Lopac testified that the reason for this policy is that they have a wait list of approximately 360 inmates to get into the Industries Unit and believe that it was only fair that they start back as a Porter.

This policy was implemented in January of 2002 and was a change from the prior policy.

Mr. Lopac then testified that he knew Claimant and that Claimant had worked for him for a number of years.

Mr. Lopac stated that in March of 2004, Claimant was the clerk in the warehouse and that Claimant would distribute supplies to the other inmates in the Unit.

Mr. Lopac stated that Claimant was at that time at 100% pay rate.

Mr. Lopac testified that in March of 2004, Claimant was issued a disciplinary ticket for an alleged fighting.

Mr.

Lopac stated that he did not know any of the facts of the case but learned that the next morning when Claimant was then called out of work and put in segregation for some time.

After Claimant's stay in segregation, Claimant then returned back to the Industries Unit.

[*148] Upon Claimant's return, Mr. Lopac called the Assistant Warden to make sure that Claimant could begin work again.

At that time, Mr. Lopac testified that he was told that Claimant should be administratively unassigned until further notice.

Mr. Lopac stated that he was given no reason or any specifics pertaining to this directive by the Assistant Warden.

Mr.

Lopac stated to Claimant that this was his directive from the Assistant Warden and that he could not be reassigned to the Industries Unit until further notified.

Mr. Lopac then testified that Claimant came back to the Industries Unit on July 14 and was given a Porter position.

He stated that when informing Claimant about the Porter position that Claimant was "taken back" by the Porter position.

Claimant stated to Mr.

Lopac that he needed time to think about it and that he left his office but returned shortly thereafter and stated that he would come back to the Porter position.

Mr. Lopac then stated that about a week later there was a position for the order entry position but that Claimant did apply or bid for the position.

Mr. Lopac stated that he was then later promoted to the laboratory on September 7, 2004.

Additionally, Mr. Lopac stated that when a rehire comes back to work, there is a written policy that does expedite them to their previous pay rate after starting as a Porter.

Additionally, Mr. Lopac stated that department rules 4-2040 states that "when a committed person is found not guilty of a rule violation in accordance with part 54 or an investigation in the case that they did not commit a violation, he may be returned to the assignment that he held before being removed.

Factors to be considered are limited liability of the assignment."

Mr. Lopac

added that it did not say that they have to be taken back where they formerly worked.

Mr. Lopac then stated that on prior occasions, people in the Industries did get their job back when the "Industry Unit" issued the ticket and it was unfounded.

This incident [*149] was the first instance where the inmate had been taken from the Industries Unit employment by the administration.

Therefore, Mr. Lopac handled this case as a "rehire" because he had lost his assignment by an outside unit, not the Industries Unit.

Mr. Lopac

specifically stated that this was the first instance where an inmate had been taken from the Industries Unit by the administration.

Mr. Lopac stated that the reason he did not take Claimant back at 100% pay rate was due to the fact that he handled the situation as a rehire.

Upon cross-examination, Claimant questioned Mr. Lopac as to the duties Claimant had performed for Mr. Lopac.

Claimant then stated that he on a prior occasion, bid for a promotion and on three occasions was not given that promotion.

Mr. Lopac stated to Claimant that although a non-production person cannot initially bid on a production status job, if no one bids on the production status job, a promotion even to a non-production inmate is open to anyone in the building and therefore Claimant could have bid on the position that was open.

Mr. Lopac then stated to Claimant that on the occasions that Claimant had bid for a promotion, there were other inmates that were more qualified than Claimant.

The Commissioner then questioned Mr. Lopac as to their policy procedures.

Specifically, the Commissioner questioned Mr. Lopac as to the policy change which occurred after Claimant had returned back to the Industries Unit.

Mr. Lopac stated that they had been adhering to the prior policy since 2002 and that it had not been in a written form.

The Commissioner then asked Mr. Lopac whether the only reason he was not returned to his 100% pay position was his suspension was outside the Industry Unit and therefore Mr. Lopac treated him as a rehire.

Mr. Lopac stated that if a ticket had been [*150] written in the Industry Unit and was expunged, the Claimant would have been put back in a 100% position.

But because the administration did not give him a reason for his suspension and that the suspension occurred outside of his Unit, he was treated as a rehire and therefore put at a Porter position.

Additionally, Mr. Lopac stated that he was not given a directive by the Assistant Warden to put Claimant back in his prior position.

Upon further examination by the Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Lopac stated that it was an administrative decision to suspend Claimant and not done by the Industries Unit and no information was given.

Therefore, upon their directive to take Claimant back into the Unit, no other directive was given to what job Claimant was to return to in the Unit.

Additionally, it was the policy of the Industries Unit to treat Claimant as a rehire.

Mr. Lopac

did admit that this policy was now in writing after this case.

He also added that he believed it was the correct procedure to follow under the circumstances as he was never confronted with this type of case before.

Upon further cross-examination, Claimant stated that another case in which an inmate was taken from the Dixon Correctional Institution in error was brought back to the same position and pay scale by a Director from the Administration.

Mr. Lopac stated that because Mr. Williams was taken out of the institution in error, the administration requested that he be given his job back as if he never left the institution.

In closing, Claimant argued that he wanted to be treated fairly and that he be given an opportunity to have this Court "right a wrong" and to do what is right.

Respondent, in closing, stated that in the case at bar, Claimant received a ticket that was expunged but was then told that he could not go immediately back to his job by the administration.

It was approximately three months later that Claimant was allowed to go back.

Respondent

[*151] argued that this was a unique situation for Mr. Lopac and that Mr. Lopac did the best that he could with the understanding of the rules and policies that were put in place and therefore no liability upon the correctional institution should be made by this Court.

THE LAW

The law is well settled that inmates do not have a right to employment in a correctional facility.

Pippion v. State (1990) 430 Ct. Cl. 327.

In the Pippion case, this Court concluded that Claimant had lost nothing to which he had a right.

The Court determined that the Claimant in Pippion was entitled only to the amount of money allocated to unassigned pay which equaled $10.00 a month.

In the case at bar, Claimant was issued disciplinary tickets which were later expunged.

Shortly after his expungement, Claimant went back to his old unit and requested his previous job.

Because the ticket was not issued by the Industry Unit but was issued by an outside authority, Mr. Lopac, the Superintendent of the Industry Unit followed a 2002 unwritten policy which would only allow Claimant to come back into the Unit as a rehire.

However, at this time, upon verifying his return to the Unit, Mr. Lopac was told by the Assistant Warden that the administration would not allow Claimant to return back until approximately three months later.

At that time, Mr. Lopac again was confronted with how to handle Claimant's return and job position.

Mr. Lopac followed the 2002 unwritten policy allowing Claimant back in the unit as a rehire and therefore at a Porter position.

Additionally, Mr. Lopac also had advised Claimant that he could wait until a higher-level position was open.

Claimant agreed to take the Porter position at that time.

In the case at bar, there was no directive by the administration to Mr. Lopac to put Claimant back in his previous position and his position was therefore at the discretion of [*152] Mr. Lopac.

Moreover, the department rules specifically state that inmates "may be returned to an assignment that he held before being removed".

Because the only open position at the time was a Porter position and because Claimant refused to wait until a higher position was available, Mr. Lopac took back Claimant as a rehire and therefore did not violate any departmental rules.

Additionally, in Montgomery v. The State of Illinois (1988) 41 Ct. Cl. 190, this Court held that they would not adjudicate the fairness or propriety of administrative regulations applicable to the Department of Corrections and the provisions pertaining to prisoner job assignments.

It is clear from the record that Claimant, within 8 months, returned to his 100% level of status pay and was not barred from re-entering the Industry Unit.

Because under Illinois case law, a prisoner does not have a right to employment in a correctional facility and that this Court does not adjudicate the fairness of administrative regulations pertaining to job assignment, Claimant, in the instant case, did not lose a job he had a right to have in the first place.

Therefore, the case of Pippion, supra, is controlling.

Therefore, this claim is denied.