In Their Opinion : Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

ZERENTE v DELUCA (February 9, 2009)

Maria Zerente was employed by the City of Chicago Heights from 1995 until 2003, during the two terms of Mayor Ciambrone. Several candidates vied for the mayoral position in 2003, after Ciambrone announced that he would not run for reelection. Anthony DeLuca won on a fiscal responsibility platform. DeLuca hired Dan Proft as Chief of Staff. They both concluded that one of the City’s biggest fiscal problems was a bloated workforce. They fired seventeen employees and did not fill another seventeen open positions. Proft also came to believe that Zerente’s department was underperforming. DeLuca fired Zerente and replaced her with the man who had been his campaign treasurer. Zerente brought a § 1983 action against DeLuca and Proft, alleging that her firing was due to her political affiliation. The district court granted summary judgment to DeLuca and Proft. Zerente appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Sykes affirmed. The Court laid out the elements of a prima facie case of political discrimination – constitutionally protected conduct and evidence that the conduct was a substantial and motivating factor in the firing decision. Zerente established the first prong with evidence of her support of Ciambrone, her involvement in the primary campaign of a DeLuca opponent, and her decision to remain neutral in the general election. The Court held that she failed to meet the second prong, however. She presented no evidence that DeLuca or Proft were even aware of her political activity. Her fallback position that it was her political inactivity (i.e., her neutrality during the general election) that resulted in her firing also fails. Although her neutrality is protected, she brought forth no evidence, other than that her replacement was not neutral, to establish that her neutrality was a motivating factor. That her replacement was involved in DeLuca’s campaign simply does not support her claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

NAGLE v. VILLAGE OF CALUMET PARK (February 4, 2009)

William Nagle, a white male in his fifties, is a police officer with the Village of Calumet Park and has been for almost thirst years. He has been active in union matters for most of that time. The Village hired a new Police Chief (Davis, a black male in his fifties) and Assistant Chief (Rockett, a white female in her forties) in 2002. Nagle claims that Davis discriminated against him on racial and age bases. The incidents he complains of include: a) Davis asked Nagle when he was going to retire, b) Davis referred to Nagle and his peer group on several occasions as “old white mother f*****s,” c) Davis selectively disciplined Nagle in comparison to younger officers, d) Davis said he might be getting “too old” for the job, e) Davis suspended Nagle for failing to assist another officer but did not discipline another officer for the same conduct, and f) Davis reassigned Nagle to duties that Nagle considered undesirable. Nagle also contends that Davis discriminated against him because of his speech. Nagle had spoken up publicly at a meeting in opposition to Davis’ manpower reduction plans. Davis later criticized him for doing so. A few days later, Nagle was suspended for violating a new sick-leave policy. Nagle filed charges with the EEOC. A few weeks later, Davis again suspended Nagle, this time for preparing a union grievance while on-duty. The suspension was overturned and Nagle was paid for the time. He nevertheless filed a second EEOC charge alleging that his suspension was on account of his age and race and in retaliation for the earlier EEOC charge. After being suspended again for violating the sick-leave policy, Nagle filed a third charge alleging that that suspension and an earlier reassignment were made due to his age and race and in retaliation for his complaints. Nagle brought an action, alleging age discrimination under ADEA and race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. He also brought a § 1983 action, alleging a violation of the First Amendment. The court granted summary judgment for defendants on all counts. Nagle appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Evans and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed Nagle’s race and age discrimination claims. The Court noted the lack of direct evidence of discriminatory intent. But the direct method of proof also allows a plaintiff to rely on circumstantial evidence. That evidence could include a) suspicious timing, b) ambiguous statements or conduct directed at the protected group, c) evidence of better treatment of those outside the group. or d) evidence that a qualified employee was passed over in favor of a person outside the group. The Court refused to disregard Davis’ race and age-based remarks simply because they were not close in time to the complained of discrimination. A determination must be made on all the facts. Here, Nagle tried to buttress his claim by showing that Davis generally hired non-white or non-male applicants and that he treated non-white and non-male officers better. The Court found that Nagle failed to produce enough evidence on either point. In addition, most of Nagle’s complaints did not refer to adverse employment actions. None of the reassignments he complained of changed the terms or conditions of his employment or affected his career prospects. The Court concluded that Davis’ comments were the only evidence under the direct method and insufficient to establish a prima facie case, given their lack of proximity to the complained-of conduct. The Court addressed Nagle’s claims under the indirect method. Under that method, among other things, a plaintiff must show adverse employment actions and that similarly situated individuals were treated better. The Court’s analysis of these same issues under the direct method show the lack of claim under the indirect method. The Court proceeded to address Nagle’s retaliation claim, again under a direct and indirect method. Nagle failed to carry the day on his retaliation claim because, on most, he failed to prove that he suffered materially adverse employment decisions and on one other, he failed to prove that Davis even knew of his EEOC charge when Davis suspended him. Finally, with respect to Nagle’s First Amendment claim, the Court found the record sparse with respect to the particulars of the speech. Without more information about content, form, and relationship of the speech to his job as a police officer and his role as a union representative, the Court was unable to determine whether his speech was protected.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BIELANSKI v. COUNTY OF KANE (December 18, 2008)

Kane County set up a Child Advocacy Center (“Center”) to coordinate the investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse. The Child Advocacy Advisory Board (“Board”) is responsible for drafting the policies and procedures for those investigations and prosecutions. Kathryn Berg and David Byrne were a child protection investigator and police officer, respectively, assigned to the Center. [The facts that follow, given the posture of the appeal from a motion to dismiss, are taken from the complaint.] In mid-2001, Berg and Byrne interviewed a six-year old boy and his parents. The boy claimed he had been sexually abused by “Lorri.” Berg and Byrne failed to follow accepted techniques used in child victim interviews. They did not use techniques to identify the perpetrator and did not even ask the boy to describe her. Within days, Lorri Bielanski, a fifteen-year-old neighbor of the boy, was notified that credible evidence existed that she had sexually assaulted the boy. Sometime shortly after Berg and Byrne’s interview of the boy, they learned that: a) he was taking medication for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, b) he was in special education classes, c) he was known, on two occasions, to have undressed with others and tried to get others to undress, d) his parents confronted him about the undressing incidents and punished him, and e) his parents suggested to him that he may have been sexually abused. Berg and Byrne did not disclose this information to the prosecutors or Bielanski. The county filed a Petition for Adjudication of Wardship, alleging the commission of two sexual assault felonies. As a result, Bielanski was forced to attend court hearings and an interview with a probation officer and was not allowed to travel out of the state without court permission. Bielanski was eventually acquitted of all charges and was successful in getting her record expunged. She filed a complaint against the County, the Center, the Board, Berg, and Byrne. Based on § 1983, she alleged: a) that the defendants violated her Fourth Amendment rights by compelling her to attend the court hearings and restricting her movement, and b) that Byrne and Berg violated her rights to a fair trial and due process by withholding the information they had about the boy. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Bielanski appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne and Rovner affirmed. The Court began with Bielanski’s Fourth Amendment claim. In order to make out such a claim, the plaintiff must allege a seizure and that it was unreasonable. Since Bielanski was not seized in the normal sense of an arrest, the Court reviewed Justice Ginsburg’s “continuing seizure” concurrence in Albright and other circuits’ approaches in similar situations. In Albright, Justice Ginsburg supported a Fourth Amendment analysis whereby a defendant who was arrested, released, and then summoned back to court based on the misleading testimony of a police officer could state a claim for unlawful seizure. No other Justice has adopted the analysis. The Court concluded that a summons, even when combined with travel restrictions and a forced probation officer interview, is an insufficient restraint on freedom to constitute a seizure. The Court then addressed the fair trial claim. The elements of that claim are that: a) the evidence is favorable to the accused, b) that it was suppressed by the government, and c) that it was material. The Court noted that materiality was the only element in dispute and that the Supreme Court had not addressed a case in which evidence was withheld and the defendant was later acquitted. Several other circuits have concluded that a Brady claim cannot survive an acquittal or dismissal of charges. The Court concluded that Bielanski had no Brady claim since earlier disclosure of the evidence would not have resulted in a dismissal of the charges.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SANDAGE v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (November 24, 2008)

Sheena Sandage-Shofner twice called the sheriff’s department in Vanderburgh County and complained that a man named Moore was harassing her. Moore was in the sheriff’s custody, serving a prison term for robbery. Sandage-Shofner’s complaints arose at times when Moore was out of prison on work release. Two days after her second complaint, Moore murdered Sandage-Shofner and two other people and then took his own life. Christine Sandage and Arthur Shofner brought a suit under § 1983, claiming that the County’s failure to reimprison Moore deprived their decedents of their lives without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. Sandage and Shofner appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Rovner affirmed. Relying principally on the Supreme Court’s decision in DeShaney, the Court held that there is no federal constitutional duty to protect the citizenry from private violence, nor is there a right to be rescued from a danger that was not created by the government. There is a right not to be harmed, a right illustrated, for example, by prisoner cases alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs. Here, the Court concluded, the government did not restrict Sandage-Shofner’s access to aid and it took no affirmative steps that increased the danger to Sandage-Shofner. It simply failed in its moral obligation to protect its citizens from private harm, for which there is no federal constitutional remedy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

TRIGILLO v. SNYDER (October 31, 2008)

The Illinois Department of Corrections (“Department”) created a new position in 1999 dedicated to procurement matters. The Department hired Tracy Trigillo, an attorney, into the position. Her responsibilities included managing the Department’s contracting, purchasing, leasing, and inventories. She advised department officials on legal matters. She also was responsible for ensuring that contracts were properly bid and in compliance with the Illinois Procurement Act. From early in her employment, Trigillo had concerns about the Department’s procurement practices. She frequently advised her superiors of her concerns, with little effect. In late 2000, she drafted a report that summarized many of her concerns. The report was addressed to the Department of Central Management Services (“CMS”), an agency that provided procurement support to other state agencies. Trigillo also sent the report to the state Attorney General (“AG”). The report contained some allegations of misconduct, although it was principally addressed to policy disputes. Also in 2000, one of Trigillo’s staff members told her that Department officials had rigged the bid of a contract to benefit a friend of the governor. Although the incident predated Trigillo’s tenure in the Department, she was responsible for monitoring an extension of the contract. She reported the information to the FBI but did not advise her superiors that she had done so. When her term of employment was up for renewal in late 2001, the Department chose not to renew. Although she had received acceptable performance reviews during her tenure, her supervisor stated that her approach to procurement principles was “over-zealous” and that she was not a team player. Trigillo brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that she was non-renewed in retaliation for her reports of misconduct. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court separated her speech into three categories. The court held that: a) her routine communications with her superiors were part of her normal job duties and not as a citizen speaking out on matters of public interest, b) her CMS report referred principally to policy disputes and, to the extent it did raise matters of public interest, the Department’s interest in effective operations outweighed Trigillo’s interest as a citizen, and c) her report of misconduct to the FBI was constitutionally protected but there was no evidence that the person who decided not to renew her contract knew about it. Trigillo appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Evans, and Williams affirmed. The Court first observed that the district court entered judgment just prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos. Garcetti reaffirmed the limitations imposed by the First Amendment on a public employer’s ability to restrict the “liberties employees enjoy in their capacities as private citizens.” The role of the Court is to determine whether the speech is that of an employee doing her job or that of a private citizen reporting on a matter of public interest. Garcetti requires an inquiry into whether the speech in question relates to the employee’s official obligations, even the more general ones. Trigillo conceded on appeal that her routine communications did not meet the Garcetti standard. The Court addressed the other two categories. The Court rejected defendants’ argument that the CMS report was per se “official” because it was required by statute. The Court noted that the statutory duty was very broad and applied to all employees. Instead of looking at a broad duty, the Court looked at the speech at issue and the responsibilities of the employee. The Court held that the CMS report did not meet the Garcetti standard. The report: a) made no “accusations”, b) sought “guidance” on procurement issues, c) was written on Department letterhead, d) was signed by Trigillo in her official capacity, and e) offered her group’s resources to any investigation. The Court held that the report fit squarely within Trigillo’s responsibilities of managing the procurement practices of the Department. With respect to the FBI report, the Court agreed with the district court that Trigillo had presented no evidence that the decision-maker even knew that she made the report. It could not have been the reason for her non-renewal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Garcetti">Share Link

KAY V. BOARD OF EDUCATION (October 27, 2008)

Gail Kay taught in the Chicago public school system. After she retired in 1994, she brought a § 1983 action against the Board of Education (“Board”). She alleged that the Board penalized her on account of her speech. The parties settled the litigation in 1996 and her case was dismissed. In the settlement, the Board offered to rehire Kay into an available future position. In 1997, she was offered an opportunity to return to her former school. She taught for seven more years – yet she never received another paycheck. After retiring again in 2004, she brought suit against the Board in federal court to enforce the 1996 settlement, alleging that her seven years of teaching without pay was a breach of the settlement. The district court dismissed the case on its own accord for “lack of venue” because Kay was governed by a collective bargaining agreement that required arbitration. Kay appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Sykes and Tinder vacated the judgment of the court and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. First, the Court listed several reasons why the court erred in dismissing the suit because of the collective bargaining agreement’s arbitration clause: a) only the union and employer can invoke the clause, b) a settlement of a dispute is not arbitrable as a claim arising under the agreement, c) a collective bargaining agreement cannot require the arbitration of civil rights claims, and d) the Board cannot compel arbitration with a volunteer, which they claim is Kay’s status. The panel also criticized the court below for acting independently, without benefit of the views of the parties.

Although the Court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint, it identified (and asked for supplemental briefing on) a different problem. The Supreme Court’s decision in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. makes clear that the vehicle for enforcement of a settlement of a federal case is a contract claim, which cannot be brought in federal court unless it qualifies independently under diversity principles. Apart from a settlement, a state’s wage-payment statute is the proper vehicle for a claim for unpaid wages. Kay conceded that she has no federal claim to enforce the settlement or for unpaid wages. She asserted, however, a claim that the Board’s failure to abide by the settlement is further retaliation for her assertion of constitutional rights. The only assertion of rights she maintains, however, are those that pre-dated the settlement. The Court noted that the Board’s failure to pay cannot be deemed a revived retaliation claim under Kokkonen. Finally, the panel did consider whether the Kokkonen rule applied in the context of a state actor defendant. It held that the Constitution does not require a state actor to keep its promise; it only requires some process before depriving a person of property. Kay’s opportunity to litigate her case in state court is process enough.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

HAYES v. SNYDER  (October 9, 2008)

Floyd Hayes, a Vietnam War veteran, was serving a ten-year sentence at the Hill Correctional Center (“Hill”) in Illinois. In 2000, Hayes developed testicular cysts. Tests revealed that the cysts were benign. A Hill physician determined that neither a biopsy nor urological referral were indicated. Hayes’ condition worsened and he began to experience more pain. He requested a urology referral in 2001. Hill personnel declined. In September, he began receiving an antibiotic and over-the-counter pain medication. Beginning in October, he saw Dr. Hamby twice and then started seeing Dr. Shute. Dr. Shute wanted to refer Hayes to a urologist and administer prescription pain medication but Hamby refused to approve. Hayes complained to Hill personnel. He sent letters to the Director and to his staff. He described in significant detail his condition and the extreme swelling and pain he experienced. He complained that he needed to see a specialist but that Hamby would not approve. The Hill staff investigated Hayes’ complaint by seeking information from the medical staff. Hamby himself responded to the inquiry by the staff with a lengthy e-mail. He confirmed that Hayes had two cysts but concluded that they were stable but for “self-reported swelling and occasional tenderness.” Hayes and the non-medical staff continued their correspondence. The staff continued to base its responses to Hayes on communications from Hamby that nothing further needed to be done. Hayes filed a formal grievance complaining of inadequate treatment for his pain. The grievance officer denied his grievance, relying on Hamby’s assurance that Hayes was “treated and tested” appropriately.

Upon his release from Hill, Hayes went directly to a nearby VA hospital. Although he complained of testicular pain, the hospital referred him to the psychiatric ward. They allowed Hayes only a few minutes with a urologist. It seems that the Hill staff had called the hospital to warn them that Hayes might be coming and to advise them that his problems were principally psychiatric. Hayes was released after ten days. He went to his home in Kentucky where he visited the local VA hospital there. He received an evaluation, an ultrasound, and a urology referral. Hayes was diagnosed with Peyronie’s disease, a connective tissue disorder that is often painful. The disease is not easily recognized or well understood, even by urologists. Hayes was referred to and is still being treated by a pain management specialist.

Hayes filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Hamby for his failure to treat his condition and against the non-medical staff at Hill for their failure to respond to his condition properly. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the merits and on the basis of qualified immunity. Hayes appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple, and Wood reversed in part and affirmed in part. The Court started with the rule and the test. The defendants are liable if they displayed “deliberate indifference” to Hayes’ medical needs. Hayes must establish that the condition itself, objectively, is sufficiently serious. Then he must establish that the prison officials knew of and disregarded an excessive health risk. The Court first addressed the objective prong of the test. In finding that a reasonable trier of fact could find in Hayes' favor on the objective test, the Court relied on Hayes’ complaints of extreme pain and swelling and Hamby’s refusal to refer Hayes to a specialist. It disregarded the fact that the disease was quite rare and hard to diagnose, given Hamby’s refusal to even make a referral.

The analysis of the subjective element of the test required separate approaches for Dr. Hamby and the non-medical defendants. The Court relied on several facts in the record to conclude that Hayes could meet the test with respect to Hamby.  Hamby a) refused to approve the urology referral, b)may have stopped minimal treatment of ice-packs and non-prescription pain medication in retaliation for Hayes' complaints, c)  testified that he would never prescribe pain medication for a prisoner, and d) was dismissive of Hayes' needs in his deposition testimony. The Court found these to be sufficient facts to establish that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Hamby’s conduct constituted deliberate indifference.

Addressing the non-medical personnel, the Court stated that non-medical personnel are generally justified in believing that a prisoner is being adequately cared for if he is in the hands of medical personnel. Here, the non-medical personnel investigated Hayes’ complaints. They were entitled to rely on the professional judgment of the medical professionals. The Court held that Hayes could not establish his claims against the non-medical personnel.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

KOZUSZEK v. BREWER  (October 8, 2008)

Nicole Kozuszek and her brother Wesley lived with their parents and were registered to vote in Porter, Indiana. About a month before the 2003 general election, Wesley reported his car stolen in the neighboring town of Chesterton. The police met him at an apartment he rented in Chesterton. The police report of the theft lists the apartment as the residence of  Wesley and Nicole. Wesley was scheduled to be a poll-watcher in Chesterton on election day. At a pre-election training session, Chesterton Police Chief Nelson noticed a document on which Wesley had asked that his fee for poll-watching be sent to the Porter address. Nelson recalled the theft incident and the Chesterton address Wesley gave the police. He mentioned the discrepancy to Dale Brewer, an election official. Brewer did nothing with the information until election day. She and Wesley were both at the Chesterton polls. Brewer asked Wesley if he liked living in Chesterton. Wesley responded that he did not live in Chesterton, at least on a regular basis. Brewer did not question Wesley further about the address discrepancy . Instead, she consulted with the other election board members. All of them agreed that Wesley’s vote should be challenged if there was a residence conflict. Brewer learned from election officials in Porter that Nicole and Wesley had both voted by absentee ballot in Porter. Brewer challenged both ballots.  The Porter poll inspector spoiled the ballots.  The Kozuszeks brought a § 1983 claim, alleging that Nelson and Brewer violated their right to vote. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Kozuszeks appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Williams, and Tinder affirmed. They observed that the parties agreed that the votes should not have been spoiled.  To be successful on their § 1983 cliam, however, the Kozuszeks had to prove that Nelson and Brewer willfully acted to spoil the ballots. Willfulness requires an intent to undermine the electoral process. Addressing Wilson, the Court found that he did nothing wrong. He merely reported a voting record discrepancy to an elected official. With respect to Brewer, the Kozuszeks rely on a) the fact that Brewer waited until election day to challenge the vote, leaving no time to resolve the issue pre-election, and b) the fact that Brewer neglected to tell the Porter poll inspector about the information (Wesley's statement to Brewer and the pay voucher) that would have supported Wesley's Porter registration.  The Court determined that neither of these facts amounted to willfullness on Brewer's part.  The Court also relied on the fact that there was no evidence that the poll inspector did not exercise independent judgment.  The Court held that no reasonable jury, particularly because Brewer had reasonable explanations for her actions, could find that Brewer acted willfully.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link