{
  "id": 5626755,
  "name": "HOMER C. PARKHILL, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Parkhill v. Illinois Civil Service Commission",
  "decision_date": "1978-03-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 14622",
  "first_page": "291",
  "last_page": "293",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 3d 291"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "340 N.E.2d 560",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill. App. 3d 1072",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2960902
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/34/1072-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 N.E.2d 521",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. App. 3d 950",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2808777
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/38/0950-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "370 N.E.2d 511",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. 2d 27",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5456767
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/69/0027-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "352 N.E.2d 389",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. App. 3d 436",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2970773
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/40/0436-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "361 N.E.2d 782",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ill. App. 3d 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3367555
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/47/0081-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "367 N.E.2d 778",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ill. App. 3d 494",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3387108
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/52/0494-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 467,
    "char_count": 6960,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.905,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.664520030624944e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8252438655689965
    },
    "sha256": "4072d2266a3323ce131dbabc37776ec3e8d3efdff4d9f7e62d3fd597b5e851e1",
    "simhash": "1:efab68cd88723f7c",
    "word_count": 1115
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:59.686785+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HOMER C. PARKHILL, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GREEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendants Illinois Civil Service Commission and Illinois Department of Corrections appeal the order of the circuit court of Livingston County reversing the order of defendant Civil Service Commission discharging plaintiff Homer C. Parkhill from his position as a part-time physician with defendant Department of Corrections.\nThe dismissal was ordered pursuant to the Department\u2019s allegations that, after repeated oral and written warnings, plaintiff had failed to fulfill the Department\u2019s requirement that he remain at the Pontiac Correctional Center to be available for consultation for the full two-hour periods from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m. each Monday and Wednesday and every other Friday. Another charge made by the Department was found by the Commission to be without merit. The trial court concluded that the Commission\u2019s finding that plaintiff, after repeated warnings, had failed to remain at the correctional center for the required time was proper but that, considering plaintiff\u2019s otherwise outstanding service, cause for dismissal was not present. The trial court remanded for determination of appropriate sanction.\nThe evidence indicated that plaintiff had in fact rendered services to the facility for many years and that these services had been otherwise highly meritorious. In addition to his regularly scheduled appearances, he had been subject to call at all hours and had answered those calls. The evidence also showed, however, that plaintiff habitually left the center on his regularly scheduled visits soon after.it appeared to him that all of the inmates who wished to go on sick call had an opportunity to do so. Usually this occurred well before 10 a.m. During the period from September 3,1975, through October 10,1975, and after an assistant warden had several times directed plaintiff that he remain for the full two-hour period, plaintiff left early 15 consecutive times, never staying later than 9:10 a.m.\nPlaintiff\u2019s contention is that it would have been useless and a waste of his professional time for him to have remained when there was no work for him to do. The Department\u2019s contention is that plaintiff was required to remain for the hours called for by the schedule and for which he was paid because occasionally some prisoners might be delayed in being brought to sick call and would not arrive until after plaintiff had left.\nSection 11 of the Personnel Code prohibits discharge of employees such as plaintiff except for \u201ccause.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 127, par. 63b111.) Although that term is not defined in the Code, the courts of this State have construed it to be some substantial shortcoming which renders the employee\u2019s continuance in office in some way detrimental to the discipline and efficiency of the service and which the law and sound public policy recognize as good cause for his no longer holding the position. (Hardaway v. Civil Service Com. (1977), 52 Ill. App. 3d 494, 367 N.E.2d 778; Epstein v. Civil Service Com. (1977), 47 Ill. App. 3d 81, 361 N.E.2d 782; Kreiser v. Police Board (1976), 40 Ill. App. 3d 436, 352 N.E.2d 389, aff'd and remanded (1977), 69 Ill. 2d 27, 370 N.E.2d 511.) Such shortcoming need not be directly connected with the performance of the work; however, it must not be trivial, arbitrary or unreasonable. Hardaway.\nIn Fornuto v. Police Board (1976), 38 Ill. App. 3d 950, 349 N.E.2d 521, plaintiff\u2019s violation of a police department regulation requiring that he carry his official service revolver was found insufficient to warrant his discharge. In Caliendo v. Goodrich (1976), 34 Ill. App. 3d 1072, 340 N.E.2d 560, the circuit court\u2019s upholding of a policeman\u2019s discharge was reversed where the appellate court ruled his use of his service revolver in self defense while off duty would not support his discharge.\nPlaintiff here relies heavily upon the appellate court\u2019s decision in Kreiser. There, although affirming the findings of the Chicago Police Board that a policeman had (1) operated a vehicle not properly licensed, (2) failed to obey an order of a superior, (3) made a false statement to a superior, and (4) left a duty assignment without being properly relieved and without properly logging out, the court ruled that these findings failed to constitute cause for his discharge. That court noted, in reaching its decision, that plaintiff possessed a satisfactory record for almost six years of service with the department. Later, the supreme court affirmed the appellate court\u2019s decision (69 Ill. 2d 27, 370 N.E.2d 511), remanding, however, to the Board for consideration as to what other disciplinary action, if any, should be taken.\nWe find the facts of the instant case unlike those in Kreiser, but similar to those in Epstein and Hardaway. In Epstein, the discharge of a State hospital psychologist was upheld where the evidence showed plaintiff was insubordinate and refused to attend weekly and monthly meetings as required by his superiors. In Hardaway, a supervisor at a State hospital was ruled properly discharged on the finding of her sleeping while on duty, the court stressing the importance of discipline at work and the need for smooth operation of the employing institution.\nWe understand the reluctance of a busy physician, who likely has many patients waiting for him elsewhere, to stay at the correction center after he thought that he had tended to all persons who would need his services there. However, the prerogative to determine reasonable hours of employment remains in the employer. If the Department deemed the two-hour period necessary, it had the prerogative to require compliance as a condition of employment. The essence of the cause for plaintiffs discharge is his repeated failure after warning to comply with the requirement of his employment. The Commission could have concluded that plaintiff was refusing to stay the full two-hour period. Such a refusal would clearly be detrimental to the discipline and efficiency of the Department.\nThe Department may have difficulty in finding another physician who will render the services that plaintiff has but it must be permitted to enforce reasonable rules as to working hours of its employees. If plaintiff did not wish to follow these rules, he should have resigned.\nThe ruling of the Commission was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and was supported by the law. We reverse the order of the trial court and affirm the order of the Commission.\nCircuit court reversed, Civil Service Commission affirmed.\nREARDON and TRAPP, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GREEN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Chicago (Gregory G. Lawton, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellants.",
      "Smith, Loy & Hirst, of Pontiac (Ronald V. Hirst, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HOMER C. PARKHILL, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFourth District\nNo. 14622\nOpinion filed March 31, 1978.\nWilliam J. Scott, Attorney General, of Chicago (Gregory G. Lawton, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appellants.\nSmith, Loy & Hirst, of Pontiac (Ronald V. Hirst, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0291-01",
  "first_page_order": 313,
  "last_page_order": 315
}