2025 IL App (1st) 231404-U No. 1-23-1404 Order filed May 1, 2025 Fourth Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
ROBERT DEVOGELEAR, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 23-CH-01120 ) THOMAS J. DART and PETER G. LISUZZO, ) Honorable ) Neil J. Cohen, Defendants-Appellees. ) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE LYLE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Rochford and Justice Hoffman concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: We affirm the circuit court’s dismissal of the complaint.
¶2 Plaintiff Robert Devogelear is employed by the Cook County Sherriff’s Office (Sheriff’s
Office) as a police officer. Defendant Thomas J. Dart, the Sheriff of Cook County, filed a
disciplinary complaint against Mr. Devogelear with the Cook County Sheriff’s Merit Board (Merit
Board), alleging that Mr. Devogelear had asked police academy recruits whether one of the recruits
in their class was transgender. Mr. Dart sought to dismiss Mr. Devogelear as a result of his No. 1-23-1404
misconduct, but the parties entered into a settlement agreement whereby, inter alia, Mr. Dart
agreed to withdraw the complaint and Mr. Devogelear agreed that his conduct violated the
Sheriff’s Office’s code of conduct and that he would serve a 45-day suspension. Defendant Peter
G. Lisuzzo, director of the Sheriff’s Office of Professional Review, notified the Illinois Law
Enforcement Training and Standards Board (Standards Board) of Mr. Devogelear’s suspension.
After serving his suspension, Mr. Devogelear returned to work but was assigned to a different
position in the Sheriff’s Office.
¶3 Mr. Devogelear brought suit, alleging, inter alia, that defendants acted willfully and
wantonly, breach of contract, and constitutional violations based on not being returned to his
original position at the Sheriff’s Office and defendants’ report to the Standards Board, which he
alleged was not contemplated under the terms of the settlement agreement. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code)
(735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2022), contending that Mr. Devogelear failed to allege sufficient facts
to support his claims and that his claims were barred by the terms of the settlement agreement and
various municipal immunity statutes. The circuit court agreed with defendants and granted their
motion to dismiss the complaint.
¶4 On appeal, Mr. Devogelear asserts that the court erred in dismissing his complaint where
defendants submitted false information to the Standards Board, and willfully and wantonly
reassigned him and notified the Standards Board about his suspension despite agreeing that he
would not be disciplined beyond the suspension. Mr. Devogelear maintains that defendants
breached the settlement agreement between the parties by reassigning him after his suspension and
by reporting him to the Standards Board. Mr. Devogelear also contends that the circuit court erred
-2- No. 1-23-1404
in dismissing the other claims in his complaint. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment
of the circuit court.
¶5 I. BACKGROUND
¶6 On June 6, 2018, while employed as a police officer for the Sheriff’s Office, Mr.
Devogelear asked recruits at the Sheriff’s Office’s Police Academy whether one of the recruits in
their class was transgender. Mr. Devogelear asked this question based on a rumor, without official
reason or purpose related to his employment. Mr. Dart filed a complaint with the Merit Board
against Mr. Devogelear. The parties thereafter entered into a settlement agreement and release of
claims, resolving the Merit Board complaint.
¶7 In the settlement agreement, the Sheriff’s Office agreed to withdraw the pending Merit
Board complaint and issue Mr. Devogelear a 45-day suspension. Mr. Devogelear would “return-
to-work” on December 15, 2022. The Sheriff’s Office agreed to not seek further discipline based
on the facts alleged in the underlying Merit Board complaint. In exchange, Mr. Devogelear agreed
that his conduct of asking the police academy recruits whether there was transgender recruit in
their class violated the Cook County Sheriff’s Police Department’s Law Enforcement Service
Manual, Conduct Policy by “conducting himself off-duty in a manner in which he knew or
reasonably should have known is unbecoming his person as a Police Officer, was contrary to good
order, efficiency, or morale, and which tended to reflect unfavorably upon the Sheriff’s Office or
its members.” Mr. Devogelear further agreed that “he intended no harm in asking the question and
realizes now that it was a sensitive issue.” Mr. Devogelear agreed that he would attend training
prior to returning to work and would forego any attempt to challenge the suspension.
¶8 The settlement agreement also contained a release section, whereby Mr. Devogelear agreed
to irrevocably and unconditionally release the Sheriff and Cook County from any and all actions
-3- No. 1-23-1404
and suits of any nature arising out of or relating in any way to the subject matter of the settlement
agreement and to the occurrences underlying the agreement, except for the purpose of enforcing
the agreement.
¶9 On January 5, 2023, after Mr. Devogelear had returned to work, Mr. Lisuzzo filed a
professional conduct report with the Standards Board, noting that Mr. Devogelear had been
suspended for more than 10 days as a result of a violation of agency policy. Mr. Lisuzzo attached
to the conduct report a 153-page “Report of Investigation” from the Office of Professional Review,
as well as the signed settlement agreement.
¶ 10 On February 3, 2023, Mr. Devogelear filed a “COMPLAINT FOR EQUITTABLE [sic],
AND MONETARY RELIEF, PURSUANT TO BREACH OF CONTRACT; RETALIATION,
STIGMA-PLUS; FALSE LIGHT & WILLFUL & WANTON CONDUCT” against defendants
Mr. Dart and Mr. Lisuzzo. Mr. Devogelear alleged that the settlement agreement between the
parties provided that he would "suffer” only one adverse employment action, a 45-day suspension,
after which he would return to work. Mr. Devogelear maintained that defendants breached the
contract by assigning him to a different position at the Sheriff’s Office after he served the
suspension and by reporting him to the Standards Board. Mr. Devogelear asserted that because
defendants were not required to report him to the Standards Board, such a report or charge would
have to be bargained for as part of the settlement agreement.
¶ 11 Mr. Devogelear further alleged that the Report of Investigation that Mr. Lisuzzo filed with
the Standards Board contained “a litany of knowingly made false allegations by the Sheriff.” Mr.
Devogelear maintained that defendants knew about these false allegations but nonetheless filed
the report with the Standards Board “with deliberate indifference and a retaliatory motive.” Mr.
Devogelear alleged that defendants took these actions because they wanted to further punish him
-4- No. 1-23-1404
beyond what the parties agreed to in the settlement agreement. Mr. Devogelear identified what he
believed was the most significant false allegation, which was that he “outed” the transgender police
recruit. Mr. Devogelear asserted that the Report of Investigation accused him of sexual harassment
based on his conduct, which defendants knew to be false. Mr. Devogelear also contended that he
suffered “deprivations caused by the Defendants (e.g., career-ending filing by Defendants with
Standards Board; loss of reputation; stigma attachment and monetary loss) because he exercised
his right to free speech when he advocated in support” of the transgender recruit.
¶ 12 In count I of his complaint, Mr. Devogelear alleged that defendants acted willfully and
wantonly in disregarding their obligations under the settlement agreement and in consciously
disregarding Mr. Devogelear’s safety and wellbeing. In count II, Mr. Devogelear alleged breach
of contract and sought specific performance. In counts III and IV, Mr. Devogelear alleged “Stigma
Plus,” contending that he engaged in protected speech by advocating for the transgender police
recruit and that defendants retaliated against him in violation of Illinois law and the first
amendment to the United States Constitution. In count V, Mr. Devogelear alleged a claim for false
light, contending that defendants’ actions placed him in a false light before the public. In count VI,
Mr. Devogelear sought declaratory relief that there was an actual controversy and a declaration
that defendants’ action of reporting him to the Standards Board was a retaliatory action and a
breach of contract.
¶ 13 Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to section 2-619.1 of the
Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2022)). Defendants asserted that because Mr. Devogelear was
suspended for more than 30 days, under the collective bargaining agreement between the Illinois
Fraternal Order of Police Labor Council Union and the Sheriff of Cook County (CBA), he was
vacated from his position, and, therefore, was returned to work in a different role at the Sheriff’s
-5- No. 1-23-1404
Office after serving his suspension. Defendants further contended that because Mr. Devogelear
was suspended for more than 10 days, Mr. Lisuzzo was required to notify the Standards Board that
Mr. Devogelear had willfully violated the Sheriff’s Office’s policy pursuant to section 9.2(a) of
Illinois Police Training Act. 50 ILCS 705/9.2(a)(1) (West 2022)).
¶ 14 Defendants asserted that the court should dismiss counts I, IV, and V of Mr. Devogelear’s
complaint because he failed to plead sufficient facts to support those counts. With regard to count
I, defendants contended that Mr. Devogelear alleged solely the legal conclusion that defendants
acted willfully and wantonly, but failed to allege any facts showing that defendants owed him a
duty, that they breached that duty, or that the breach caused Mr. Devogelear’s injury. Defendants
maintained that even if the court overlooked these deficiencies, their alleged conduct did not rise
to the level of willful and wanton because there was nothing in the settlement agreement that
required Mr. Devogelear to be returned to his original position. Defendants represented that Mr.
Devogelear was assigned to a different position based on the Sheriff’s Office’s operational needs,
not as a form of discipline. Defendants continued that Mr. Lisuzzo’s report to the Standards Board
was also not willful and wanton conduct because the notification was required by statute.
¶ 15 Defendants asserted that count IV should be dismissed because Mr. Devogelear failed to
plead that he engaged in protected speech. Defendants pointed out that Mr. Devogelear failed to
plead facts showing how and when he advocated for the transgender police recruit and how and
when defendants knew of the alleged advocacy. Regarding count V, defendants contended that
Mr. Devogelear failed to plead the public disclosure element of a claim for false light, noting that
the only disclosure defendants made was to the Standards Board. Defendants also maintained that
Mr. Devogelear failed to support his claim that defendants knew or should have known that the
information in the report was false with specific factual allegations.
-6- No. 1-23-1404
¶ 16 Defendants next asserted that the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to section 2-619
of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2022)) based on the releases in the settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement contained a release whereby Mr. Devogelear agreed to release all claims,
whether known or unknown, related to the subject matter of the agreement. Defendants contended
that these releases barred Mr. Devogelear’s return to work and first amendment claims in counts
I, III, IV, and V. Defendants also asserted that many of Mr. Devogelear’s claims were barred by
immunities. Specifically, defendants maintained that under section 2-201 of the Local
Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745 ILCS
10/2-201 (West 2022)), they had absolute immunity for discretionary decisions in the exercise of
policy. Defendants asserted that this included discretionary decisions such as whether to assign
Mr. Devogelear to a different position when he returned to work and whether the Sheriff’s Office
was legally obligated to report Mr. Devogelear’s suspension to the Standards Board.
¶ 17 Finally, defendants contended that counts II and VI should be dismissed because Mr.
Devogelear failed to sufficiently plead that defendants breached the settlement agreement.
Defendants pointed out that the agreement did not state that Mr. Devogelear would be returned to
his original position after serving his suspension and did not prevent them from reporting his
misconduct to the Standards Board.
¶ 18 In response, Mr. Devogelear first contended that defendants improperly recited factual
background from the Report of Investigation that contained many “rescinded statements” and
factual misrepresentations. Mr. Devogelear asserted that defendants withdrew the first
administrative complaint and “replaced it” with a new complaint, demonstrating their
acknowledgement that the initial administrative complaint contained “mistaken assertions and
misrepresentations.” Mr. Devogelear maintained that the only correct factual assertion is that he
-7- No. 1-23-1404
asked whether there was a transgender person in the police academy recruitment class after which
Mr. Dart “launched a vile campaign against Officer Devogelear in which Mr. Dart wrongfully
accused [Mr.] Devogelear of being a sex harasser for asking the question.” Mr. Devogelear
asserted that Mr. Dart made these allegations to “avoid liability” and place the blame on Mr.
Devogelear when, in fact, it was Mr. Dart and other staff members of the police academy who had
“outed” the transgender recruit. Mr. Devogelear noted that the transgender officer was currently
involved in litigation with the Sheriff’s Office and Mr. Dart in federal court.
¶ 19 Mr. Devogelear further contended that his claims were not barred by collateral estoppel
because the complained-of conduct occurred after the settlement agreement had been executed.
He also asserted that defendants were not immunized by the Tort Immunity Act because they acted
willfully and wantonly. Finally, Mr. Devogelear maintained that defendants materially breached
the settlement agreement because Mr. Devogelear would not have signed the settlement agreement
if he had been told that he would be reported to the Standards Board. Mr. Devogelear contended
that the settlement agreement provided that he would be returned to work and if defendants sought
to further punish him by reassignment to a different position, such punishment should have been
bargained for in the settlement agreement.
¶ 20 The court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed Mr. Devogelear’s complaint with
prejudice. The court found, inter alia, that Mr. Devogelear failed to support his claims with
adequate factual allegations, that his claims were barred by the Tort Immunity Act, and that he
failed to establish any constitutional violations. Mr. Devogelear filed a timely notice of appeal
from the circuit court’s dismissal order. We find that we have jurisdiction to consider the merits
of this appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rules 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) and 303(a) (eff.
July 1, 2017).
-8- No. 1-23-1404
¶ 21 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 22 On appeal, Mr. Devogelear contends that the court erred in granting defendants’ motion to
dismiss where defendants breached the settlement agreement by reassigning him to a different
position at the Sheriff’s Office and by notifying the Standards Board as retaliation for “advocating”
for the transgender recruit. Mr. Devogelear maintains that defendants are not immunized by the
Tort Immunity Act because they acted willfully and wantonly by intentionally misrepresenting
Mr. Devogelear’s conduct to the Standards Board.
¶ 23 A. Standard of Review
¶ 24 Defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Devogelear’s complaint pursuant to section 2-619.1 of
the Code. 735 ILCS 5/2-619.1 (West 2022) “Section 2-619.1 of the Code permits a party to
combine a section 2-615 motion to dismiss based upon a plaintiff’s substantially insufficient
pleadings with a section 2-619 motion to dismiss based upon certain defects or defenses.”
Edelman, Combs & Latturner v. Hinshaw & Culbertson, 338 Ill. App. 3d 156, 164 (2003). In
determining the legal sufficiency of the complaint under either section, we accept as true all well-
pleaded facts and we draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the plaintiff.
Lykowski v. Bergman, 299 Ill. App. 3d 157, 163 (1998). “A legally sufficient complaint is one
which sets forth a legally recognized claim upon which the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages.
[Citation]. A factually sufficient complaint must plead facts which are essential to the plaintiff’s
alleged cause of action.” Id. Our standard of review is de novo under either section of the Code.
Glasgow v. Associated Banc-Corp, 2012 IL App (2d) 111303, ¶ 11.
¶ 25 B. Count I: Willful and Wanton
¶ 26 In count I of his complaint, Mr. Devogelear alleged that defendants acted willfully and
wantonly. As our supreme court has repeatedly stated, there is no separate and distinct tort for
-9- No. 1-23-1404
willful and wanton conduct. See, e.g., Jane Doe-3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Bd. of
Directors, 2012 IL 112479, ¶ 19; Doe v. Coe, 2019 IL 123521, ¶ 78. Rather, willful and wanton
conduct is regarded as an aggravated form of negligence. Krywin v. Chicago Transit Authority,
238 Ill. 2d 215, 235 (2010). “In order to recover damages based on willful and wanton conduct, a
plaintiff must plead and prove the basic elements of a negligence claim—that the defendant owed
a duty to the plaintiff, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the breach was a proximate
cause of the plaintiff's injury.” Jane Doe-3, 2012 IL 112479, ¶ 19. Additionally, the plaintiff must
allege either a deliberate intention to cause harm or a conscious disregard for the plaintiff’s welfare.
Id. “ ‘When the plaintiff is alleging that the defendant engaged in willful and wanton conduct, such
conduct must be shown through well-pled facts, and not by merely labelling the conduct willful
and wanton.’ ” Thurman v. Champaign Park District, 2011 IL App (4th) 101024, ¶ 10 (quoting
Winfrey v. Chicago Park District, 274 Ill. App. 3d 939, 943 (1995)).
¶ 27 Initially, we observe that the allegations in Mr. Devogelear’s complaint in support of count
I sound more in breach of contract than in negligence, willful and wanton or otherwise. Mr.
Devogelear asserted that defendants’ actions showed “an utter indifference to and conscious
disregard for their obligations under the contract” and sought to be restored to his original
assignment and for defendants to withdraw the filing with the Standards Board. Notably, Mr.
Devogelear did not plead that defendants owed him a duty, that they breached that duty, or that
the breach proximately caused his injuries. Mr. Devogelear did plead that defendants acted with
the deliberate intent to cause him harm, but alleges that they did so with “conscious disregard for
their obligations under the contract.” He further pled that defendants acted with “utter indifference
and conscious disregard” for his “safety and wellbeing” and “for the rights of [the transgender
Sheriff’s Office recruit] and Devogelear to prosecute action against Sheriff Dart and his [Office of
- 10 - No. 1-23-1404
Professional Review], inter alia[,] without retribution and retaliation.” But Mr. Devogelear failed
to support either of these legal conclusions with specific factual allegations. Thurman, 2011 IL
App (4th) 101024, ¶ 10.
¶ 28 Nonetheless, in his brief before this court, Mr. Devogelear intermingles the arguments
alleged in his claim for false light with his willful and wanton claim. He maintains that he alleged
that the Report of Investigation that defendants submitted to the Standards Board contained a
number of statements that defendants knew to be false. Mr. Devogelear acknowledges that the
Report of Investigation is not included in the record, but maintains his description of the file, and
his identification of statements therein which defendants knew to be false, should have been
accepted as true at this stage of the proceedings.
¶ 29 While it is true that a section 2-619.1 motion to dismiss accepts as true all well-pleaded
facts, it does not admit legal and factual conclusions that are unsupported by allegations of specific
facts. Lake County Grading Co. of Libertyville, Inc. v. Advance Mechanical Contractors, 275 Ill.
App. 3d 452, 456-57 (1995)). The thrust of Mr. Devogelear’s claim appears to be that defendants
were attempting to falsely shift the blame to Mr. Devogelear for “outing” the transgender recruit
when it was in fact Mr. Dart and other Sheriff’s Office staff who “outed” her. Mr. Devogelear
maintains that defendants then retaliated against Mr. Devogelear because he “advocated” for the
transgender recruit. He asserts that the only wrong he committed was “asking [a] question.”
¶ 30 First, Mr. Devogelear’s allegations that the Report of Investigation contained false
statements and that defendants knew these allegations were false are legal conclusions, not well-
pled factual allegations. He refers to two separate investigative files, one which allegedly contains
knowingly false statements made by defendants, and a second, “replacement” file containing new
allegations that somehow implicitly demonstrates that defendants acknowledged the allegations
- 11 - No. 1-23-1404
made in the first investigative file were false. Notably, however, neither investigative file is
included in the record filed on appeal. There is a page in the record indicating that plaintiff removed
the Report of Investigation that defendants filed with the Standards Board from the record and
filed it under seal in the circuit court. Defendants noted in support of their motion to dismiss that
plaintiff filed it under seal without leave of court. Nonetheless, it was not filed in this court, under
seal or otherwise. It is well-settled that the appellant bears the burden of providing this court with
a complete record in order to facilitate meaningful review. Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-
92 (1984). We resolve all doubts arising from the incompleteness of the record against the
appellant. Id. at 392. Mr. Devogelear’s insistence that we must accept his rendition of the
statements allegedly made therein and his interpretation of their truth or falsity is not well-taken.
As a final note, the circuit court’s order does not reference either investigative file, making it
unclear whether the circuit court had an opportunity to review the documents.
¶ 31 Mr. Devogelear also fails to support his claim of retaliation with any factual support. He
cites generally to a pending federal case between the transgender recruit and Mr. Dart, but fails to
explain how this supports his claim for willful and wanton negligence. He also makes several
assertions that Mr. Dart’s actions caused harm to the transgender recruit, but she is not a party to
this action. In short, Mr. Devogelear fails to state a claim for willful and wanton negligence.
¶ 32 Even if we found that the complaint stated a cause of action for willful and wanton
negligence, we would nonetheless find that defendants were immunized from such a claim under
the Tort Immunity Act. The purpose of the Tort Immunity Act is to protect local public entities
and public employees from liability arising from the operation of government. 745 ILCS 10/1-
101.1 (West 2022). As relevant here, section 2-201 provides, “a public employee serving in a
position involving the determination of policy or the exercise of discretion is not liable for an
- 12 - No. 1-23-1404
injury resulting from his act or omission in determining policy when acting in the exercise of such
discretion even though abused.” 745 ILCS 10/2-201 (West 2022). “Discretionary immunity for
public officials is ‘premised upon the idea that such officials should be allowed to exercise their
judgment in rendering decisions without fear that a good-faith mistake might subject them to
liability.’ ” Andrews v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, 2019 IL
124283, ¶ 26 (quoting Harrison v. Hardin County Community Unit School District No. 1, 197 Ill.
2d 466, 472 (2001)). Significantly, section 2-201 provides absolute immunity for both negligence
and willful and wanton conduct. Id.
¶ 33 To determine whether a municipal defendant is entitled to discretionary immunity, we
apply a two-part test. Id. ¶ 27. First, the municipal defendant must establish that the employee held
either a position involving the determination of policy or a position involving the exercise of
discretion, and, second, the employee engaged in both the determination of policy and the exercise
of discretion when performing the act or omission from which the plaintiff’s injury resulted. Id.
“Policy determinations are defined as decisions requiring the public entity or employee to balance
competing interests and make a judgment call as to what solutions will best serve each of those
interests.” Id. ¶ 28. “An employee’s act or omission will be deemed discretionary where the
employee has exercised personal deliberation and judgment in deciding whether to perform a
particular act, or how and in what manner that act should be performed.” (Internal quotation marks
omitted.) Id.
¶ 34 In this case, Mr. Devogelear challenges his reassignment to a different position following
his suspension and Mr. Lisuzzo’s report to the Standards Board. Mr. Dart maintained that he
reassigned Mr. Devogelear because, under the CBA, his position was considered vacated after 30
days and Mr. Dart determined that the reassignment best served the Sheriff’s Office’s operational
- 13 - No. 1-23-1404
needs. This is clearly both a determination of policy and discretion. Similarly, Mr. Lisuzzo asserted
that he was required to report Mr. Devogelear’s conduct to the Standards Board pursuant to section
9.2(a)(1) of the Illinois Police Training Act. That section provides: “All law enforcement agencies
and the Illinois State Police shall notify the Board of any final determination of a willful violation
of department, agency, or the Illinois State Police policy, official misconduct, or violation of law
within 10 days when the determination leads to a suspension of at least 10 days.” 50 ILCS
705/9.2(a)(1) (West 2022). Mr. Lisuzzo maintained that he was required to report Mr. Devogelear
to the Standards Board under this section because Mr. Devogelear willfully violated the Sheriff’s
Office’s code of conduct and was suspended for more than 10 days.
¶ 35 Mr. Devogelear responds, however, that this section did not require that he be reported to
the Standards Board because his conduct was not “willful.” He asserts that because of the lack of
intentionality in his conduct, Mr. Lisuzzo “may” have reported him to the Standards Board, but
was not required to do so. See 50 ILCS 705/9.2(a) (West 2022) (“Agencies and the Illinois State
Police may report to the Board any conduct they deem appropriate to disseminate to another law
enforcement agency regarding a law enforcement officer.”) (Emphasis added.).
¶ 36 First, setting aside any argument about the intentionality of Mr. Devogelear’s conduct, the
fact that Mr. Lisuzzo “may” report to the Standards Board any conduct the Sheriff’s Office deemed
appropriate is clearly an exercise of discretion and a policy determination subject to section 2-201
immunity. Second, Mr. Devogelear fails to develop any argument regarding how his conduct was
not willful or intentional. By the terms of the settlement agreement, Mr. Devogelear agreed that
his conduct of asking the police academy recruits whether there was transgender recruit in their
class violated the Cook County Sheriff’s Police Department’s Law Enforcement Service Manual,
Conduct Policy by “conducting himself off-duty in a manner in which he knew or reasonably
- 14 - No. 1-23-1404
should have known is unbecoming his person as a Police Officer, was contrary to good order,
efficiency, or morale, and which tended to reflect unfavorably upon the Sheriff’s Office or its
members.” Mr. Devogelear further agreed that “he intended no harm in asking the question and
realizes now that it was a sensitive issue.” Although Mr. Devogelear may have intended no harm,
this does not mean that he did not act willfully or intentionally. Black’s Law Dictionary defines
“willful” as an action “[d]one wittingly or on purpose, as opposed to accidentally or casually;
voluntary and intentional, but not necessarily malicious.” Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024).
Indeed, in his brief, Mr. Devogelear acknowledges that he asked the question, thereby violating
the conduct policy, “out of curiosity and for prideful reasons *** and since he had heard a rumor.”
He does not maintain that he asked the question accidentally. Thus, Mr. Devogelear agreed in the
settlement agreement that the conduct that led to his suspension was willful. Therefore, Mr.
Lisuzzo was required to report him to the Standards Board.
¶ 37 Mr. Devogelear therefore failed to adequately plead a claim for willful and wanton
negligence and defendants are immune from such a claim under the Tort Immunity Act.
Accordingly, we find that the circuit court did not err in dismissing count I of Mr. Devogelear’s
complaint.
¶ 38 C. Count II: Breach of Contract
¶ 39 In count II of his complaint, Mr. Devogelear alleged that defendants breached the
settlement agreement by not returning him to his original position following his suspension and
by reporting him to the Standards Board. Mr. Devogelear maintains that if defendants intended to
report him to the Standards Board and reassign him to a different position, such conditions should
have been set out in the settlement agreement. He asserts that he would not have signed the
settlement agreement if he knew he would be reported to the Standards Board and reassigned.
- 15 - No. 1-23-1404
¶ 40 In order to state a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must allege (1) an offer and
acceptance; (2) consideration; (3) definite and certain terms of the contract; (4) plaintiff’s
performance of all required contractual conditions; (5) defendants’ breach of the terms of the
contract; and (6) damage resulting from the breach. Barille v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 289 Ill. App.
3d 171, 175 (1997).
¶ 41 In the settlement agreement, the parties agreed that Mr. Devogelear would serve a 45-day
suspension beginning on October 31, 2022, and return to work on December 15, 2022. The
agreement further provided that defendants would not seek “further discipline” based on the facts
underlying the Merit Board complaint. Mr. Devogelear did not allege that he was not returned to
work in a timely manner, but asserts that by reassigning him to a different position and notifying
the Standards Board, defendants implemented further discipline beyond what the parties agreed to
in the settlement agreement. Mr. Devogelear asserts that the report to the Standards Board was a
“career stifling action.”
¶ 42 First, as discussed above, Mr. Lisuzzo was required to report Mr. Devogelear to the
Standards Board by the terms of 9.2(a)(1) of the Illinois Police Training Act. That section provides
that law enforcement agencies “shall” report a willful violation of department policy or official
misconduct when the determination leads to a suspension of at least 10 days. 50 ILCS 705/9.2(a)
(West 2022). “The word ‘shall’ generally indicates the legislature’s intent to impose a mandatory
obligation.” Openlands v. Department of Transportation, 2018 IL App (1st) 170340, ¶ 27. Mr.
Devogelear fails to explain how this mandatory reporting to the Standards Board constitutes
“further discipline” beyond vague speculation that it will hurt his further career advancement.
¶ 43 Further, there is nothing in the settlement agreement that provides that Mr. Devogelear will
be returned to work in the same position. The CBA, which defendants attached to their motion to
- 16 - No. 1-23-1404
dismiss, provides in Article IV, section 4.8 that a position will become vacant when an employee
is, inter alia, suspended for more than 30 days. Mr. Devogelear was suspended for 45 days. Thus,
his position became vacant during his suspension and defendants represented that they filled the
position. Mr. Devogelear was then assigned to a different position at the Sheriff’s Office. Again,
Mr. Devogelear fails to allege that the new position represents some form of additional discipline.
Mr. Devogelear does not allege that the new position pays less, has less opportunity for
advancement, or represents some form of demotion. In short, he fails to allege how he was
damaged by the assignment to a new position. Accordingly, we find that the circuit court did not
err in dismissing count II of Mr. Devogelear’s complaint.
¶ 44 D. False Light, Stigma Plus, Declaratory Judgment, and Attorney Fees
¶ 45 Next, we find that Mr. Devogelear has forfeited any argument that the circuit court erred
in dismissing his claims for false light, stigma plus, and declaratory judgment. In his brief before
this court, Mr. Devogelear fails to develop any argument regarding these claims and merely asserts
that he believes he has “satisfied his pleading burden” and “incorporates his Complaint and his
Response to the motion to dismiss herein.” This is insufficient to warrant review by this court.
Supreme Court Rule 341(e)(7) requires that a party provide argument and citation to any relevant
authority when raising an issue. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(e)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020); People v. Guest, 166 Ill.
2d 381, 414 (1995). By failing to do so, Mr. Devogelear forfeited review of these issues. See In re
Marriage of Auriemma, 271 Ill. App. 3d 68, 72 (1994) (“[A] reviewing court is entitled to have
the issues on appeal clearly defined with pertinent authority cited and a cohesive legal argument
presented. The appellate court is not a depository in which the appellant may dump the burden of
argument and research.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Elder v. Bryant, 324 Ill. App.
3d 526, 533 (2001) (“Mere contentions, without argument or citation of authority, do not merit
- 17 - No. 1-23-1404
consideration on appeal. [citation]. Allegations of trial court error summarily raised without
supporting authority are deficient and warrant a finding of waiver.”). Accordingly, we will not
consider Mr. Devogelear’s arguments that the court erred by dismissing counts III, IV, V, and VI
of his complaint.
¶ 46 Finally, because all of Mr. Devogelear’s claims were dismissed, we find it unnecessary to
consider his argument for attorney fees. In any event, Mr. Devogelear likewise fails to develop
any argument regarding his claim for attorney fees, again directing this court to the allegations in
his complaint, asserting that defendants reported him to the Standards Board to gain leverage in
the pending federal litigation between the transgender recruit and Mr. Dart, and contending that
he believes his “eventual motion for attorney fees should be granted.” (Emphasis added.) Such an
argument is simply insufficient to warrant review by this court.
¶ 47 On May 23, 2024, defendants filed a motion to not hold argument on certain dates. We
ordered that motion taken with the case. The order filed in this case pursuant to Illinois Supreme
Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018) reflects that this court determined oral argument was not
necessary to our resolution of the case because the briefs set forth no novel legal issue or
complicated factual matter indicating that oral argument would further our consideration of this
appeal. In addition, the dates specified in defendants’ motion have passed. Accordingly, we deny
the motion as moot.
¶ 48 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 49 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County.
¶ 50 Affirmed.
¶ 51 Motion taken with case denied as moot.
- 18 -