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

ABCARIAN v. MCDONALD (August 13, 2010)

Dr. Herand Abcarian was a senior surgeon at the University of Illinois College of Medicine and the University of Illinois Medical Center in Chicago. Over time, he clashed frequently with co-employees over issues like recruitment, compensation, risk management, and benefits. He alleges that several of these co-employees conspired to defame him and deprive him of his constitutional rights. In particular, he alleges: a) they caused the University to settle a malpractice claim against him for almost $1 million, b) the reported the malpractice settlement to federal and state databanks, and c) they caused the malpractice plaintiff's attorney to file suit against Abcarian only to then have it dismissed as a result of the settlement. Abcarian brought suit pursuant to § 1983, alleging constitutional violations of his right to free speech, equal protection, and procedural due process. Judge Der-Yeghiayan (N.D. Ill.) dismissed for failure to state a claim. He also denied Abcarian's requests to amend the judgment and to amend his complaint. Abcarian appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Williams, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court first addressed his First Amendment claim that he was retaliated against for his speech. Garcetti dealt with an employer's retaliation and the Court noted that it had already reserved judgment once about whether that rule applied to a co-employee's retaliation. Again, the Court ducked the question whether Garcetti applies to all employees but did conclude that it applies to employees whose actions are advancing the interests of their employer. The Court also concluded that a practical view of the speech, keeping in mind Abcarian's role and the content and context of the speech, lead to the conclusion that he spoke as a public employee under Garcetti, not as a private citizen. His speech was therefore not protected. Abcarian's equal protection claim was a "class-of-one" claim under which a plaintiff need not allege a suspect classification. The plaintiff must, however, allege arbitrary treatment without a rational basis. The basis of Abcarian's claim is that the defendants reported the malpractice settlement. But they had no discretion in the matter. Federal and state law required the report and would have exposed them to punishment had they failed to report. The Court concluded that the lack of discretion precluded an equal protection claim. Abcarian's third constitutional claim was a procedural due process claim based on the defendants' defamation. In order for defamation to rise to the level of a due process violation, a plaintiff must allege that was stigmatized by publicly disclosed information and that he suffered a loss of employment opportunities. The Court concluded that Abcarian could not meet this test because he still maintains his same positions at the Medical Center and College of Medicine. One cannot be thought to have been deprived of something that one still possesses. Finally, the Court concluded that Abcarian could not and did not meet the test for a Rule 59(e) motion. Since a post-judgment amendment would only be allowed if his Rule 59(e) motion was granted and it was clear that the district court had entered a final judgment, Abcarian was also not entitled to amend his complaint.

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

MUSCARELLO v. OGLE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (June 24, 2010)

Ogle County, Illinois joined the "green" movement in 2003 by amending its zoning ordinances to allow for the construction of windmills. Baileyville Wind Farms received the first special use permit for 40 windmills in 2005. The county also adopted a plan to protect residential, but not non-residential, property owners in the event of any diminution of property value. Patricia Muscarello owns nonresidential property adjacent to the proposed windfarm and has opposed its siting from the beginning. Unsuccessful in her attempts to block the project locally, Muscarello brought suit. She brought constitutional claims (unlawful taking, due process, equal protection), common law claims (trespass, nuisance), and state law claims (declaratory judgment, administrative review, writ of certiorari, unlawful taking, due process, equal protection, injunctive relief). She named over forty defendants, including Ogle County and related entities and individuals, the parties to the administrative proceedings, and Baileyville and its corporate parents. Judge Kapala (N.D. Ill) dismissed all the federal and common law claims as either unripe or for failure to state a claim. He then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. He also denied a request by Baileyville to stay administrative proceedings regarding the expiration of the special use permit. Both parties appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Wood, and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed the three federal constitutional claims. The takings claim alleged no physical taking but relied on the “regulatory taking” concept. Under that concept, the permit must render her land useless for her to prevail. That is not the case here. Alternatively, the Court noted that Muscarello’s takings claim fails also because she failed to exhaust available state remedies. The Court rejected her equal protection claim that addressed the differential treatment afforded to residential and nonresidential landowners. Not only was it also unripe because of her failure to exhaust, the Court concluded that it would meet the deferential "rational basis" test. With respect to the due process claim, the Court concluded that Muscarello had no protectable property interest in the lifting of restrictions on adjacent property. The Court next addressed the state common-law claims, for which Muscarello asserted diversity jurisdiction. The district court never resolved the jurisdictional question, dismissing instead on ripeness grounds. On appeal, the Court considered both issues. The Court applied its citizenship analysis and concluded that Muscarello established diversity jurisdiction. On the merits, however, the Court agreed with the district court that Illinois law requires an invasion for both a trespass and nuisance. Since the windmills have not yet been built, there is no invasion -- and no trespass or nuisance. Finally, the Court considered the several state claims for which Muscarello asserted supplemental jurisdiction. It found no abuse of discretion for the dismissal of those claims. However, since it had just established that diversity jurisdiction did exist, it questioned whether the district court should have kept these claims under diversity jurisdiction. Although a plaintiff has the burden of establishing the court’s jurisdiction, a district court should rarely dismiss when jurisdiction in fact exists but was improperly pleaded. Here, the plaintiff had been given several opportunities to properly plead jurisdiction -- and she failed to do so. The Court decided not to do it for her. Finally, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Baileyville’s requested stay.

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

PARRA v. NEAL (June 23, 2010)

Ambrosio Medrano filed the necessary papers to get his name listed as a candidate for 25th Ward Chicago alderman on the February 2007 ballot. Several voters challenged his papers. They asserted that his prior felony conviction prevented him from holding office. The Election Board and the circuit court sided with Medrano. Paper and electronic ballots were prepared with his name. Just four days before the election, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the circuit court. It ordered the Election Board to either remove Medrano’s name from the ballot or, if it remained, to disregard any votes cast for him. The Election Board had insufficient time to correct the ballots. Instead, it posted signs in three languages at all polling places and distributed individual notices to every voter in the ward in which his name was on the ballot. The signs and notices explained that a vote for Medrano would not be counted. Nevertheless, Medrano received 178 votes. Eight of those voters brought an action pursuant to § 1983 claiming that the Election Board violated equal protection by disregarding their votes. Judge Darrah (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner, and Tinder affirmed. The Court emphasized the reluctance of a federal court to become entangled in state election matters. A § 1983 action can therefore prevail only if the defendants acted willfully and intended to undermine the voting process or impair the plaintiffs' voting rights. The Court found no proof -- or even allegation -- of wrongdoing on the part of the Election Board. In fact, it did what it had to do by following the mandate of the Supreme Court.

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

SANDRA T.E. v. GRINDLE (March 17, 2010)

Three female elementary school classmates at Pershing Elementary School attended a seminar on "inappropriate touching" at their school in May of 2001. After the seminar, they wrote a short letter to the presenter stating that they were uncomfortable with the conduct of their band teacher. The presenter shared the note with Karen Grindle, Pershing's principal. Although Grindle met with the band teacher, the students, some parents, and the school's social worker, the accounts of their meetings varied. The allegations are that Grindle downplayed the significance and the seriousness of the accusations. Additional incidents surfaced in January and April of the following year. Again, Grindle is alleged to have minimized the significance of the incidents. One of the students who wrote the original letter in 2001 revealed to her mother, in 2005, her version of what happened. Her mother informed the police, a criminal investigation was launched, other victims came forward, and the band teacher pleaded guilty to multiple counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. Several of the children and their parents filed an action pursuant to section 1983, alleging a violation of their equal protection and substantive due process rights. The district court granted summary judgment on the section 1983 claim to all defendants except Grindle and the band teacher. Grindle appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner, and Hamilton affirmed. The basis of Grindle's appeal is her claim to qualified immunity. The Court recited the familiar two-part test: whether a constitutional right was violated, and whether the right was "clearly established" at the time of the conduct. With respect to the equal protection claim, the Court concluded that well-developed law at the time of Grindle's conduct held that a supervisor could be liable for deliberately ignoring an equal protection violation of her subordinate. In addition, the sexual harassment by the subordinate was a well-established equal protection violation. The Court concluded that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that Grindle intentionally discriminated against the girls to withstand summary judgment. With respect to the substantive due process claim, Grindle argued that she had no duty to protect the students from the abuse at the hands of the band teacher. The Court agreed that state officials do not generally have an obligation to protect citizens from violence, but noted the "special relationship" exception to that rule. Although the Court agreed that it had once rejected the "special relationship" theory in the student context, it also noted that the Third Circuit held otherwise in Stoneking. The Stoneking decision has been recognized in the circuit as one that is viable and, in fact, has been followed on several occasions in the district courts of the circuit. The Court concluded that a reasonable elementary school principal should have concluded that she could be liable for ignoring, or even covering up, a teacher's sexual abuse of a student. Finally, the Court noted that the plaintiffs allege that Grindle's own actions establish the constitutional violation, and not just her mere failure to act or prevent. Thus, they meet the test of Iqbal.

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

REGET v. LA CROSSE (February 8, 2010)

John Reget has operated an auto restoration and body shop business in La Crosse, Wisconsin for several decades. For almost as long, he and the City have been at odds. In 1980, the City condemned his building and gave him the funds to relocate and remodel his current building. In the early 1990s, the City cited Reget a number of times for ordinance violations pertaining to junk dealers. All the citations were ultimately dismissed. In the mid-1990s, the City threatened to rezone the area of Reget's current building. The move would have forced Reget to relocate yet again. The City backed down -- but only after Reget promised to comply with the ordinances, build a fence, and limit his nighttime operations. Both sides claim the other failed to live up to its bargain. Reget filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of his Equal Protection rights as a result of the City's selective enforcement of its ordinances. The district court granted summary judgment to the City. Reget appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Williams and Sykes affirmed. The Court noted that Reget's Equal Protection claim was of the class-of-one variety. For such a claim to prevail, a plaintiff must prove that he or she has been treated differently than others similarly situated and that no rational basis exists for such differentiation. The Court concluded that he failed to identify a similarly situated business with respect to any of his claims of discriminatory treatment.

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

AVILA v. PAPPAS (January 4, 2010)

Maria Avila was already in trouble. Her employer, the Cook County Treasurer's Office, was about to conduct a disciplinary hearing. Avila made it worse when she told one of her coworkers that she might "go postal." Her coworker advised her superiors. They not only added a disciplinary count for the implied threat and fired her but alerted the authorities. Avila was criminally prosecuted. The prosecutor charged a felony, taking the position that one of the targets of Avila's threat was a public official. Avila was acquitted, the court holding that he was not a public official. Avila filed suit against her superiors pursuant to §1983, alleging both constitutional violations and state law malicious prosecution. Although the court dismissed the federal counts, it retained the state law claim under supplemental jurisdiction and resolved it on the merits in favor of the defendants. Avila appeals the judgment on the state law claim.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Wood and Tinder vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The Court first addressed its jurisdiction. Although Avila asserted four federal law theories, the Court emphasized that a federal claim must have substance to create a basis for federal jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the federal claims -- substantive due process, conspiracy, failure to train, and equal protection -- were frivolous. The Court principally relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Albright and the Court's own decision in Newsome, holding that malicious prosecution does not violate the Constitution if state law recognizes it as a tort (which Illinois does).

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

SRAIL v. VILLAGE OF LISLE (December 7, 2009)

The Oak View subdivision was built in the 1950s. Since its earliest days, a private utility company has provided its residents with water. The Village of Lisle developed its municipal water system in 1967. The municipal system has grown as developers have donated water mains serving new projects. Lisle also purchased a private water utility in 1980. Although both the municipal system and the Oak View system receive their water from the DuPage Water Commission, the Oak View system has insufficient pressure for firefighting. Residents of Oak View sued the Village, alleging that the Village violated the Equal Protection Clause by providing municipal water to some residents and not others. The court granted summary judgment to the Village. The residents appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Kanne and Sykes affirmed. The Court first noted that the residents are not members of a suspect class and they do not allege an infringement of a fundamental right. Therefore, the Court's review is on the rational basis test. Although the Court identified issues with the plaintiffs' status as a "class of one" and with an illegitimate animus requirement, it found it unnecessary to reach either issue. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Engquist, the Court stated that government activity which involves discretionary decision-making based on a number of objective criteria need not treat all persons equally. The Village's decisions over the years to build and extend its system were based on individual assessments made at those times. There is no clear standard that the Village used and that the Court could use to judge any departures therefrom. The Court concluded that it was doubtful that the residents' claim would survive the Engquist test. The Court went on, however, and concluded that the residents failed to establish an equal protection violation. First, they were unable to establish the existence of an appropriate comparator. Second, the cost of extending the system, the apparent lack of interest on the part of most residents, and the Village's desire to avoid competition with the private utility amounted to a rational basis for its conduct.

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

HANES v. ZURICK (August 18, 2009)

Apparently, Stephen Hanes and his neighbors in Grayslake, Illinois have been unable to get along for quite some time. The feud has resulted in numerous complaints to the local police. According to Hanes' complaint that the Grayslake police officers denied him equal protection of the law, the police always blame Hanes and arrest him. He has been arrested at least eight times – and every charge was dropped. The officers moved to dismiss the complaint both for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied the officers' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, although it did not specifically mention qualified immunity. The officers appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Wood and Williams affirmed. Because a ruling on the qualified immunity defense was a necessary basis for the Court's jurisdiction of the interlocutory appeal and because the district court did not specifically mention qualified immunity, the Court first addressed its jurisdiction. The qualified immunity issue was fully briefed below, the district court addressed both prongs of the qualified immunity inquiry, and the district court gave no indication that it intended not to rule on any issue presented. The Court was therefore satisfied that it had jurisdiction to consider the order rejecting a qualified immunity defense. On the merits, the Court first considered the constitutional violation prong. The Court started with its opinion in Hilton, which recognized a class-of-one equal protection claim for unequal police treatment. The Hilton plaintiffs did not survive summary judgment because they failed to show that the unequal treatment was the result of personal animus. Personal animus is alleged here. Although the Court concluded that a constitutional violation existed under Hilton, it did consider the officers' argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Engquist should prompt it to reconsider Hilton. In Engquist, the Supreme Court held that the class-of-one theory is not well-suited to the public employment context where government actors exercise "discretionary authority based on subjective, individualized determinations." The Court rejected the invitation to reconsider Hilton. It noted that although police officers enjoy broad discretion in their actions, their discretion is much more limited than that of a public employer. On the issue of whether the constitutional right was clearly established, the Court concluded that the officers were on notice as a result of Hilton.

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

SCHOR v. CITY OF CHICAGO (August 13, 2009)

The City of Chicago passed an ordinance that prohibits the use of a mobile phone while driving unless it is used in conjunction with a "hands-free" device. Three individuals who were ticketed for violating the ordinance filed an action against the City, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and Illinois law. The district court dismissed the claims and refused to allow an amendment to the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner and Wood affirmed. The Court rejected the Fourth Amendment claim. The officers making the stops observed each plaintiff violating the ordinance. Those observations provided probable cause for the stop – and thus no Fourth Amendment violation. The Equal Protection Clause claim was a "class of the one" claim. To succeed on that claim, the Court stated, the plaintiffs had to show that they were treated differently and that there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment. Here, the drivers were treated differently than other drivers who were not using mobile phones. The basis for the differential treatment, however, was the violation of an ordinance -- clearly a rational distinction. The Court rejected the plaintiffs' Monell claims as well. A direct claim against a municipality must be based on an underlying constitutional violation, which is not present here. Finally, the Court concluded that the district court's refusal to allow an amendment to the complaint was not an abuse of discretion. In the amendment, the plaintiffs sought to include a claims that the ordinance violated their fundamental right to travel and a claim that the ordinance was void for vagueness. The plaintiffs failed to indicate how the ordinance infringed any right to travel or how its terms were so vague that an ordinary person could not understand.

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

IDRIS v. CITY OF CHICAGO (January 5, 2009)

The City of Chicago (the City”) has installed cameras at intersections since 2003. They are used to identify drivers who fail to obey red lights. The ordinance makes the owner (or, in the case of a leased vehicle, the lessee) of the vehicle liable for the fine – regardless of who was driving at the time. A group of car owners brought suit. Each had been fined for a traffic violation. In each case, however, someone other than the car’s owner was driving the car at the time of the violation. The plaintiffs allege that the ordinance violates due process and equal protection. The court granted summary judgment for the City. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Ripple and Rovner affirmed. The Court quickly disposed of plaintiffs’ substantive due process argument. It noted the absence of a fundamental liberty interest – a prerequisite for substantive due process. The Court then considered the enforcement system under the rational-basis doctrine. Again, it seemed to have little difficulty in finding the ordinance rational. The owner-liable system reduces the cost of enforcing the law and improves compliance with the law. The facts that it raises revenue and adopts a system different from the state system do not make it irrational. The distinction between owners and lessors is not discriminatory – it is, in fact, the rational approach. Finally, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ procedural due process arguments. Defenses and objections must be made at a hearing and reviewed in state court before they can be the subject of a federal court proceeding.

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

FLYING J INC. v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN (December 5, 2008)

Flying J develops and operates travel plazas for truck drivers and other travelers. It purchased 50+ acres in New Haven, Indiana (the “City”) to develop a new travel plaza. The City opposed the development and took the position that it was not allowed under the then-current zoning. Flying J ultimately prevailed in the Indiana state courts on its challenge to the City’s position. Undaunted, the City amended its zoning ordinance to limit developments of this type to two acres. The Flying J development was the only parcel affected by this limitation. The City held several public meetings on the amendment but never gave Flying J specific notice of them. In August of 2007, the City advised Flying J that its development must comply with the two acre rule. Flying J filed suit in September, alleging violations of its rights under the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. Flying J appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed the City’s position that the Court lacked jurisdiction under the principles of Williamson County. The Supreme Court in Williamson County held that takings claims in land use cases are not ripe until the local authority has reached a final decision, including a decision on a variance application and compensation. Courts have applied the doctrine to takings claims even when they are labeled as due process or equal protection claims. The Court noted that it has created an exception for claims alleging the malicious conduct of a government agent unrelated to a legitimate state objective. Flying J’s allegations of the City’s protracted litigation, its covert amendment to the ordinance, the ordinance’s application only to Flying J, and the potential conflicts of interest of several commission members fit its claim within that exception.

The Court next addressed whether Flying J stated a claim. Relying on its precedent in Wroblewski and Lauth, the Court identified the pleading standard for a class-of-one equal protection claim. In those cases, the plaintiff must negate any set of facts that provides a rational basis for the classification challenged. Animus of the defendant comes into play only after the plaintiff has pled facts that show the irrationality of the government’s conduct. Flying J does allege facts that would show that the City took its actions in response solely to Flying J’s development but it does not allege facts to establish that the zoning amendment was irrational. Flying J’s allegations therefore do not overcome the presumption of rationality the government enjoys in cases of this nature.

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