Jeannette O'Brien

  • Recommendation Termination
  • Decision Suspension
  • Length of process 3 months June 09, 2020 to March 18, 2020 Closed
  • Investigative Agency Not Specified

Charged with violating 5 rules on 11 counts

Show all counts
Rule 14 1 count

Making a false report, written or oral.
Rule 3 3 counts

Any failure to promote the Department's efforts to implement its policy or accomplish its goals.

Rule 2 3 counts

Any action or conduct which impedes the Department's efforts to achieve its policy and goals or brings discredit upon the Department.

Rule 24 2 counts

Failure to follow medical roll procedures.
Rule 6 2 counts

Disobedience of an order or directive, whether written or oral.

Board Member Votes & Decisions

Majority Decision

0 agreed

Agreed with the final decision of the board

0 disagreed

Disagreed with the final decision of the board

0 did not vote

Did not vote or were not present for voting

The Superintendent failed to meet his burden in establishing that Respondent’s conduct on December 13, 2018, negatively impacted the Department or its policy and goals. Although Respondent admitted that she violated provisions of Employee Resource E03-01-02, the Board finds that those violations, when viewed in their overall context, did not damage the Department.
Respondent’s testimony is unrebutted that prior to December 13, 2018, she planned to skip her lunch hour and leave work an hour early that day in order to take her dog to the groomer. During the hearing, the Superintendent never called into question the veracity of Respondent’s testimony on this point. Respondent testified that when she called in sick and was placed on Stationary Recuperation status, she decided to drop off her dog at the groomer anyway.
The Board is not persuaded that Respondent’s hour-long unexcused absence from home, when viewed in context, rises to the level of conduct that brings discredit upon the Department or impedes or fails to promote the Department’s policy and goals. While the Board recognizes the import of enforcing medical roll rules to ensure that the Department is adequately staffed and to prevent medical roll abuse, the Board views Respondent’s unexcused hour-long absence from home as relatively benign and not sufficiently serious as to reflect adversely on the Department nor did it affect the Department’s operations. The Board’s finding should not be read to excuse any future violations of the medical roll rules committed by Officer O’Brien or any other Chicago police officer, has no precedential impact, and is specific only to the unique facts of this case.
There is insufficient evidence in the record to prove that the Respondent stated that she
would be absent from home to attend a doctor’s appointment from 0900 hours to 1500 hours, or used words to that effect. The unidentified employee at the district with whom Respondent spoke that morning did not testify.

Minority Opinions