A dispute over workplace treatment following a medical leave has led to legal action by a longtime police officer who claims he was unfairly removed from his specialized unit due to discrimination and retaliation connected to his disability status. The complaint, filed by Timothy W. Moragne in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 24, 2026, names the City of Chicago as defendant and seeks compensatory damages as well as other relief.
According to court documents, Moragne served approximately thirteen years in the Bureau of Internal Affairs (BIA) within the Chicago Police Department. He alleges that despite an extended record of excellent performance evaluations and no prior removals from his unit, he was abruptly deemed “unfit for the unit” and reassigned under circumstances he describes as pretextual and retaliatory.
The complaint details Moragne’s employment history and medical background. On May 7, 2006, Moragne sustained an on-duty injury which ultimately required significant medical intervention, including total hip replacement surgery in 2017. As a result of ongoing impairment from this injury, he was awarded duty disability status. Despite these challenges, Moragne continued working in BIA’s Medical Integrity Section until July 2022.
Events escalated beginning July 11, 2022, when Moragne attended a scheduled medical appointment related to his previous injury. He was prescribed medication that impaired his ability to perform certain functions safely—specifically driving—and was medically restricted from work pending adjustment of that medication. By July 12, according to the filing, department leadership had been notified of these restrictions.
The complaint further alleges that around this time, Moragne’s spouse made an official complaint regarding the conduct of Sergeant Jessica Dunkin. This complaint was documented through investigative records such as COPA/BIA Investigation Log No. 2022-0002947 and referenced in an Investigative Closing Report. The plaintiff asserts that this established actual knowledge by department leadership of protected activity under federal law.
Moragne describes subsequent actions by Sgt. Dunkin as harassment during his medical leave: repeated phone calls (approximately eleven), sending another sergeant to his residence on his first day of leave, personally appearing at his home with vehicle citations allegedly not belonging to him (which were actually linked to his adult son), and initiating disciplinary action despite being informed about ownership discrepancies via departmental systems.
On July 15, 2022, an internal email circulated among command staff—including Deputy Chief Tracey Walker—identified Moragne’s duty status as “Full Duty.” However, just one day later on July 16th, Deputy Chief Walker informed him that he was “no longer fit for the unit” and reassigned him to another district while maintaining full-duty status elsewhere within the department. The complaint points out what it calls a direct contradiction between being classified as “Full Duty” yet simultaneously “unfit for the unit,” raising questions about the legitimacy of the reassignment decision.
Moragne contends there was no legitimate basis for this action: he had received no warnings or corrective actions regarding performance and was not given an opportunity to explain before being transferred out of BIA after only three or four days on medical leave—a stark contrast with other employees who returned after much longer absences without similar consequences.
The timing of these events is presented as evidence supporting an inference of retaliation—specifically that adverse employment actions followed closely after both protected activity (his spouse’s complaint) and exercise of rights under disability statutes (medical leave). The plaintiff argues that stated reasons for reassignment were inconsistent or not credible and asserts they were motivated at least in part by discrimination based on disability status or protected activities under federal law.
In Count I (Disability Discrimination under Americans with Disabilities Act), Moragne claims he is a qualified individual with a disability who suffered adverse employment action because of that disability. In Count II (Retaliation under ADA), he alleges engagement in protected activity followed by adverse action causally connected to those activities.
As remedies, Moragne requests judgment in his favor; compensatory damages; back pay and front pay; attorney’s fees and costs; along with any further relief deemed appropriate by the court. He also demands trial by jury.
Moragne is representing himself pro se in this matter. The case is assigned ID number 1:26-cv-03235.
Source: 126cv03235_Timothy_Moragne_v_City_of_ChicagoComplaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf
