STATE OF ILLINOISSTATE UNIVERSITIES CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM

KARTIK RAMAKRISHNAN, )) Before the University Civil Service

Employee-Petitioner, ) Merit Board) Discharge Proceeding

v. ))

NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, ) No. NIU-13-1)

Employer-Respondent. )

LT. RAMAKRISHNAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS

NOW COMES Employee-Petitioner Lt. Ramakrishnan, by and through his attorneys,

Laura L. Scarry and Howard P. Levine, and moves the Merit Board to dismiss the pending

charges against Lt. Ramakrishnan with prejudice and in support of his motion, Employee-

Petitioner state’s as follows:

1. Northern Illinois University (“NIU”) seeks to discharge Lt. Ramakrishnan based

on his alleged failure in 2011 to tender written statements by two NIU students to the DeKalb

State’s Attorney for the prosecution of former NIU police officer Rifkin.

2. On November 9, 2012, then NIU police chief Donald Grady issued a written

reprimand to Lt. Ramakrishnan for his alleged failure in 2011 to tender written statements by two

NIU students to the DeKalb State’s Attorney for the prosecution of former NIU police officer

Rifkin. Exhibit A.

3. The November 9, 2012, action taken by Chief Grady constituted final discipline

for Lt. Ramakrishnan for these actions.

4. Thereafter, in 2013, NIU filed the instant charges against Lt. Ramakrishnan for

the same conduct for which Lt. Ramakrishnan received a written reprimand from Chief Grady in

2012.

5. The filing of the instant charges is barred by industrial double jeopardy. The

phrase “industrial double jeopardy” refers to one of a family of concepts that fall under the rubric

of industrial due process. See 1 Tim Bornstein et al., Labor & Employment Arbitration § 15.01

(2d ed.1997); Ray J. Schoonhoven, Fairweather's Practice & Procedure in Labor Arbitration §

13, at 374 (4th ed.1999).

6. The doctrine of industrial double jeopardy enshrines the idea that an employee

should not be penalized twice for the same infraction. See, e.g., Gulf States Paper Corp., 97 Lab.

Arb. 61, 62 (1991) (Welch, Arb.).

7. The Courts have recognized the principle of industrial double jeopardy in this

jurisdiction and others. See Local Union No. 1, Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers Intern.

Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, 2000 WL 126798 (N.D.Ill. 2000); Zayas v. Bacardi Corp., 524 F.3d 65

(1st Cir. 2008).

8. Incredibly, NIU also agrees that the instant charges are barred by industrial

double jeopardy. NIU Hearing Officer Jesse Perez Memorandum, April 11, 2013 (Attached hereto

as Exhibit B) (“Because the written charges that counsel for the department successfully presented

are based on the same offense, industrial double jeopardy is a barrier to the proposed

termination.”).

9. Moreover, Hearing Officer Perez also found that “Because a copy of the

statements was given to the witnesses, there is no indication that Ramakrishnan intended to hide

the information.” NIU Hearing Officer Jesse Perez Memorandum, April 11, 2013 (Attached

hereto as Exhibit B)

10. Therefore, the parties agree that the discharge of Lt. Ramakrishnan is improper

2

based on industrial double jeopardy and Lt. Ramakrishnan’s motion to dismiss should be granted.

WHEREFORE, Lt. Ramakrishnan respectfully requests that the Hearing Officer and the

Merit Board dismiss the instant charges against Lt. Ramakrishnan with prejudice and suich

further relief as they deem necessary.

By: DeANO & SCARRY, LLC.

Laura L. Scarry Howard P. Levine DeANO & SCARRY, LLC2100 Manchester RoadWheaton, IL 60187Tel: (630) 690-2800Fax: (630) 690-2853

/tt/file_convert/55cf9c24550346d033a8c1f2/document.doc

3