From Judge Frederick Kapala’s court decision dismissing former McHenry County Deputy Sheriff Scott Milliman’s suit for wrongful dismissal:
Events Following Milliman’s 2010 Deposition
After Milliman gave his 2010 deposition, Nygren and his subordinate, defendant Undersheriff Andrew Zinke, received copies of the transcript of the deposition.
Nygren assigned Zinke to investigate the matter, who in turn assigned the investigation to Commander John Miller, also a defendant in this case.
After reading the deposition, Miller concluded that Milliman might have been suffering from what he described as psychological difficulties.
Consequently, Miller drafted a memorandum recommending that Milliman be sent for a fitness-for-duty examination.
Miller noted that, although Milliman’s behavior could be considered a breach of several rules of the MCSD, he recommended that the matter be handled as a possible medical issue rather than a disciplinary one.
He also recommended that an independent agency look into the allegations of criminal behavior and that Milliman be placed on administrative leave.
Finally, Miller noted that he would do his best to determine what steps the FBI took after it was informed of Milliman’s allegations.
Neither Zinke nor Miller interviewed Milliman or Nygren.
Despite Miller’s recommendation that the matter not be handled as a disciplinary one, the investigation file was titled “Termination Review.”
Zinke contacted the FBI by a letter dated December 3, 2010, to request clarification about its investigation. Zinke and Miller also discussed the matter with a labor attorney, John Kelly.
On December 23, 2010, Zinke placed Milliman on administrative leave and ordered him to attend a fitness-for-dutypsychological examination by Dr. Robert Meyers.
Milliman objected to Dr. Meyers, as he had been a contributor to Nygren’s election campaign and, according to Milliman, had been “used by the McHenry County Sheriff to have other members of [the] department dismissed on specious grounds.”
Instead, Milliman requested a neutral examiner, and specifically requested Dr. Grote, who had performed his 2003 evaluation.
The MCSD acquiesced and ordered Milliman to attend a fitness-for-duty examination by Dr. Grote.
In a January 4, 2011 letter, the FBI responded to Zinke’s request as follows:
We have had the opportunity to carefully review your December 3, 2010, letter requesting reports, if any, of information provided to the FBI by DeputySheriff Scott Milliman. I am also aware of the allegations attributed to Deputy Milliman, as well as statements he has made to you and others about contacts he has had with our office.
I can confirm that DeputyMilliman has approached our office in the past and provided information in confidence that he felt may be of interest to the FBI.
Where appropriate, investigation was conducted to determine the validity of the allegations.
I can tell you that none of the information provided by Deputy Milliman was determined to have prosecutive merit.
The Federal Privacy Act prohibits me from relaying the substance of the information provided by Deputy Milliman.
Though the information we can provide at this time is limited, I hope it can be of some use to you.
In documents provided by the FBI during the course of this litigation, the scope of Milliman’s reporting to the FBI became much clearer.
More specifically, in response to a subpoena in this case, the FBI produced 187 pages of heavily redacted documents reflecting an investigation of the MCSD by the FBI from 2006 to 2009.
Milliman brought all of the complaints mentioned in his 2010 testimony and many more to the FBI’s attention, all of which the FBI concluded lacked prosecutive merit.