Melrose Park police officer unable to prove status as traveling employee
Upon remand from the Cook County Circuit Court, an Illinois Worker's Compensation Commission majority determined that the claimant was not a traveling employee and his use of his employer's vehicle for personal errands was a violation of his employer's regulations.
Romano v. Melrose Park, Village of, 17 ILWCLB 1 (Ill. Ind. Comm. 2008)
Romano, an undercover narcotics agent, worked on a task force headed up by the Drug Enforcement Administration. As a member of this task force, he was assigned a car leased by the Cook County Sheriff's Police Department to the task force. On the evening of the accident at issue, Romano drove his assigned vehicle from work to a school board meeting at his child's school. Romano testified that after this meeting, he planned to meet a co-worker and conduct a surveillance. He was injured in a car accident after leaving the meeting. Romano argued that he was not prohibited from using his assigned vehicle under these circumstances. However, a DEA supervisor contradicted this testimony, contending that Romano was precluded from any personal use, or a combination of personal and business use, of the assigned vehicle. On remand from the Cook County Circuit Court, a Commission majority found that Romano was not a traveling employee and that Romano's use of the assigned vehicle for personal errands was a violation of his employer's regulations. The majority also found that Romano's work shift was over and he was not in the scope of his employment at the time of his accident. Even if Romano was a traveling employee, the majority found his actions on the evening of the accident were not foreseeable by his employer.
The dissenting commissioner argued that Romano was a traveling employee engaged in a resonable and foreseeable activity at the time of his acciddent. The commissioner contended that the fact that Romano might have violated policy by using the vehicle to drive his child's school to attend a meeting was immaterial since the accident did not occur while he was on the way to, at or leaving the meeting. The accident took place away from the school premises and while he was headed to a stakeout. Although the defendant disputed whether Romano was heading to a surveillance, no one questions that Romano was in his assigned area and traveling along a route that led toward his house. The dissent noted that the DEA supervisor's contention that Romano could not mingle personal and official business with his assigned vehicle was at odds with the fact that Romano was permitted to use his official vehicle to travel to and from his home. The dissent further noted that Romano's ability to use the assigned vehicle to get to and from home extended his workday and thus benefited the employer.
