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

SURITA v. HYDE (December 22, 2011) 

Waukegan, Illinois enacted an ordinance in 2002 pursuant to which the police could impound a vehicle if its driver was caught driving without a license or proof of insurance. The ordinance was very unpopular in the city, particularly among the minority population. At a large rally in 2004, José Surita confronted a city official. The official complained to the Mayor that Surita was very angry and that she feared a physical attack. Two days later, Surita attempted to speak during "audience time" at a City Council meeting. The Mayor refused to let him speak until he apologized to the official. The Mayor did allow others to speak on a variety of topics, including the towing ordinance. Margaret Carrasco also opposed the ordinance. When the Chief of Police heard that she was going to conduct a rally, he sent a police officer to her home to request a meeting. She came to a meeting where she was asked to comply with the City's Assembly Ordinance. A city attorney advised her that she would have to pay a permit fee of $1500 to pay for the extra police officers that the Chief determined would be needed. The City imposed a permit fee requirement on only 2 of 530 events over the last five years, both involving towing ordinance protests. The rally was never held. Chris Blanks also opposed the ordinance. Blanks was organizing a rally to be held in one of the City's parks, which are not covered by the Assembly Ordinance. Nevertheless, when the city attorney learned that Blanks did not have a permit, she sent a police officer to his home with a letter telling him that he was violating the Assembly Ordinance. Blanks cancelled the rally. Surita, Carrasco, and Blanks brought suit against the City, the Mayor, and the Police Chief, alleging First Amendment violations. Judge Shadur (N.D. Ill.) denied the requests for qualified immunity by the Mayor and the Police Chief. The Mayor and the Police Chief appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion (concurring in part and dissenting in part) and Williams and District Judge Clevert affirmed the qualified immunity denials with respect to Surita's and Carrasco's claims but reversed the denial with respect to Blanks’ claims. The Court first addressed its appellate jurisdiction since no final judgment was entered below. When the district court's summary judgment order is one denying qualified immunity, it is immediately appealable if the appeal can be resolved without resolving a disputed question of fact. The question on qualified immunity is whether the defendants' actions violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. With that foundation, the Court turned to each plaintiff’s claim. With respect to Surita’s claims against the Mayor, the Court first noted that "audience time" is a designated public forum under First Amendment law and that, therefore, any content-based restriction on speech is subject to strict scrutiny. Here, defendants argued that the restriction was not content-based since others spoke out against the ordinance at the same meeting. But restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are content-based as well. Since the restriction was content-based, it had to be narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling state interest and there was no evidence that it was. It was, in fact, a sanction for Surita’s earlier speech and behavior. The Court therefore concluded that there was a First Amendment violation. The Court then had little difficulty in finding that the constitutional right was well-established. The Court turned to Carrasco's claims against the Chief of Police. The Court first determined that the Chief was involved enough in the conduct to be personally liable. He called the meeting with Carrasco, he sent an officer to her home, and he computed the amount of extra police support that translated into the amount of the fee. There is nothing necessarily wrong with charging a fee even for the use of a traditional public forum -- but it must be content neutral. Under Forsyth County, a content-based flexible fee is unconstitutional. Here it is undisputed that the Chief took content into consideration. He testified that he needed more police support for a rally protesting the ordinance then he would for one in support of the ordinance. There was a constitutional violation and it was clearly established at the time of the meeting. Carrasco also claimed that the Chief retaliated against her for prior speech. The Court concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact with respect to the qualified immunity test in this context and so it could not be determined on appeal. Finally, the Court turned to Blank's claims against the Chief. Here, the Court determined that the Chief was not sufficiently involved in the City's conduct to support personal liability. It was the city attorney, not the Chief of Police, that applied the Assembly Ordinance to Blanks. Although the Chief received copies of the attorney's correspondence to Blanks, that is not enough to establish personal liability.

Judge Manion wrote separately, concurring in the majority's treatment of Surita’s claims and Blank’s claims but disagreeing with its treatment of Carrasco's claims. Judge Manion believed that the record did not support a finding of personal liability with respect to Carrasco’s claims against the Chief. It was the city attorney, not the Chief, that was principally involved in applying the Assembly Ordinance to Carrasco. The undisputed evidence is that the Chief did not know that the city attorney was going to impose the fee.

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

WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE STATE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE v. BARLAND (December 12, 2011)

The Wisconsin Right to Life's State Political Action Committee is an independent political committee that does not make contributions to candidates nor does it coordinate with any candidate or party. Wisconsin law places a $10,000 cap on an individual' s political contributions, whether they be to candidates, parties, or independent political committees. Two Wisconsin residents wished to make a $5,000 contribution to the PAC in 2010 but could not do so legally because of other contributions they had already made or planned to make. The PAC filed suit, alleging that the Wisconsin statute was unconstitutional to the extent it limited contributions to independent political committees. The PAC moved for a preliminary injunction, anticipating the fall 2010 elections. Instead, Chief Judge Clevert (E.D. Wis.), at defendants request, granted a Pullman abstention motion. The court based its ruling on the pendency of a case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court challenging an amended campaign finance rule. The PAC returned to the District Court in 2011, in anticipation of an unprecedented six state senator recall elections. The district court denied the motion. The PAC appealed and moved for an injunction pending appeal. A Seventh Circuit motions panel granted the motion and the Court expedited the appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit judges Posner, Flaum, and Sykes vacated the district court's abstention order and remanded with instructions to enter a permanent injunction. Before reaching the merits of the request for injunctive relief, the Court considered several preliminary challenges raised by the defendants. First, the Court concluded that the PAC had standing. The complaint alleged a proper pre-enforcement challenge. The PAC identified actual contributors who attested to their desire to make contributions in excess of the statutory limit. Second, the Court rejected the defendants' ripeness argument. The fact that the injunction pending appeal allowed the contributors freedom during the 2011 elections and their generalized desire to do so "in the future" does not establish a lack of ripeness. Future elections are only months away and the Court understood the contributors' "in the future" attestation to include those elections. Third, the Court rejected the contention that the conclusion of the 2011 recall elections made the claim moot. The Court noted that the claim probably could fit within the "capable of repetition yet evades review" exception but concluded that it need not decide that. The contributors’ claims were not limited to the 2011 recall elections. Fourth, the Court concluded that Pullman abstention was not appropriate. Although several aspects of the PAC’s case and the case pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court overlap, the $10,000 contribution limit is not one of them. The state court's decision will therefore have no impact on the constitutional challenge to the $10,000 cap. The Court turned to the merits. It noted that laws limiting political speech are subject to strict review. The Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between limits on political campaign contributions, which are frequently upheld when the limitation is narrowly drawn to serve a important government interest, and limits on political expenditures, which are subject to strict scrutiny and are usually not upheld. Citizens United held that the only government interest at play is political corruption or the appearance of corruption. Since the kind of quid pro quo political corruption that the government is concerned about does not exist in the context of a independent political organization, a limitation on its expenditures cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. Even though the Wisconsin statute at issue addresses contributions, and not expenditures, the result is the same.

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

FTC v. TRUDEAU (November 29, 2011)

Kevin Trudeau advertises his books on infomercials. The FTC, after entering into a court approved settlement, alleged that Trudeau violated the settlement and sought a contempt finding. Judge Gettleman (N.D. Ill.) agreed and found Trudeau in contempt. He imposed a $37.6 million fine and banned Trudeau from making infomercials for three years. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed (opinion and intheiropinion) the finding of contempt but remanded on the sanctions. It concluded that the district court failed to adequately explain its rationale for the monetary sanctions and also concluded that a complete ban was inappropriate, in that he did not give Trudeau an opportunity to comply with the agreement. On remand, Judge Gettleman reinstated the monetary penalty, explaining that he arrived at it by multiplying the number of books ordered through the 800 number by the price of the books plus shipping. The court also imposed a $2 million performance bond if Trudeau wanted to do any more infomercials, to be effective for five years. Trudeau appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Ripple, Manion, and Tinder affirmed. The Court rejected Trudeau's argument that the fine was improper because it was based on consumer loss. That is an appropriate approach to a contempt finding even if, as he alleges, Trudeau did not benefit to the same degree as the consumers lost. The Court actually noted that the district court's figures were conservative. It only included those books that were sold through the infomercial’s 800 number, even though other books were sold through the Internet and retail outlets. With respect to the performance bond, the Court rejected Trudeau's argument that the FTC had to show significantly changed circumstances. That rule applies only in institutional reform cases. Here the proper test is whether the order was achieving its purpose -- and it clearly was not. Finally, the Court rejected Trudeau's First Amendment argument and found the requirement narrowly enough drawn to meet the constitutional standard: a) the bond is only triggered if Trudeau decides to engage in infomercials, b) the district court gave him an opportunity to seek a reduction in the amount of the bond with proof of his financial position, and c) the amount of the bond is proportional to the threatened harm.

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

MILESTONE v. CITY OF MONROE (November 21, 2011)

The city of Monroe, Wisconsin (the "Swiss Cheese Capital of the U.S.A.") operates a Senior Center for its older residents. Nine volunteers sit on the Monroe Senior Citizens Board, which promulgated a Code of Conduct for the center. Edith Milestone used the center frequently, but not without incident. She was a frequent disruptive influence at the center and was warned about her failure to behave reasonably. In late 2008, she got into a heated discussion with the center's Director and threatened to sue her. The next day, the Center sent Milestone a letter advising her that she was no longer welcome. The letter listed the various alleged violations of the Center's Code. At Milestones request, the Senior Citizens Board held an evidentiary hearing and affirmed the ban. The Board also advised Milestone that she could appeal the finding to the Monroe Common Council. Instead of appealing, Milestone brought a § 1983 suit against Monroe, alleging violations of her due process and free speech rights. Magistrate Judge Crocker (W.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that neither the Director nor the Board were final policymakers for Monell purposes. Milestone appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Sykes, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court agreed with the magistrate, at least as far as he went. In order to establish liability against the city, there must be (in this case) a decision by a municipal agent with final policymaking authority. It is clear that neither the Director nor the Board had that authority. The Director's decisions are all subject to review by the Board. Under state and local law, the Board did not have final policymaking authority. The Monroe Common Council retained ultimate authority over the Board's activity in this area. Although the city cannot be liable for the actions of the Director or the Board under Monell, Milestone also brought a claim based on the Code of Conduct itself. The code is municipal policy and can subject the city to liability if it, as Milestone alleged, violates the First Amendment. Because the Code is content neutral, it's restrictions are acceptable if they are: a) narrowly tailored, b) to achieve a significant governmental interest, and c) allow for ample alternative communication channels. The Court concluded that the Code met each of these requirements. First, the rules only require visitors to treat each other with respect and to refrain from abusive language. Second, the Center's goal was to create a pleasant and upbeat environment for its older citizens. Third, the Code does not restrict a visitor's right to express herself, as long as she does so respectfully. The Code is a content-neutral reasonable time, place, and manner restriction and does not violate the First Amendment. Finally, the Court rejected Milestone's void for vagueness claim. Any person of reasonable intelligence would understand what conduct is prohibited.

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

BROWN v. COUNTY OF COOK (or 25, 2011)

Between 2003 and 2005 (when he retired), Thomas Brown was a sergeant in the Cook County Sheriff’s Office. He was on a list of 16 officers eligible for promotion. Brown never contributed to then-Sheriff Michael Sheahan's campaign, was a Republican (Sheahan was a Democrat), and several years earlier had donated a small amount to Sheahan’s challenger. Brown was never promoted -- only 5 of the 16 were. But Brown filed suit pursuant to § 1983 alleging that he was passed over because of his political affiliation. Judge Coleman (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the County. Brown appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Williams affirmed. The Court first noted that the Mount Healthy "motivating factor" analysis remains the appropriate analysis in a First Amendment violation case (citing its Greene decision, released shortly after oral argument). Under that test, Brown had to present evidence that his political affiliation was a motivating factor in not being promoted. The burden would then shift to the County to convince a jury that it was not a "but for" factor. Brown's evidence falls far short of the motivating factor threshold. First, two of the five officers who were promoted had not contributed to Sheahan's campaign. Second, Brown has not controverted the testimony of Sheahan and his deputies that they either did not know Brown or did not know his political affiliation. Third, the fact that Sheahan promoted a female officer who was the subject of a serious misconduct allegation is not relevant to Brown's First Amendment claim. It may have been relevant to a gender discrimination claim, but the district court refused to allow Brown to amend his complaint.

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

HUTCHINS v. CLARKE (October 24, 2011)

On May 17, 2007, callers to a popular Milwaukee radio call-in show were discussing the performance of Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, and particularly his relationship with African-Americans. Deputy Sheriff David Hutchins criticized Clarke during his call. In response, Sheriff Clarke called the show and was critical of Hutchins. Specifically, he suggested that Hutchins held a grudge because Clarke had disciplined Hutchins years earlier for sexual harassment. Hutchins brought suit pursuant to § 1983, alleging that Clarke violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him. He also brought claims under Wisconsin's Open Records Law and Right of Privacy statute. Magistrate Judge Callahan (E.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to Hutchins. Clarke appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Williams (concurring) reversed. The Court first summarily disposed of the state Open Records Law claim. That law deals with access to government records and limits access to government employees' disciplinary records. Although this case is about a disciplinary record, there was no request for access to that record -- the law simply does not apply. The Court turned to the Right of Privacy statute. The statute creates a right of action for "invasion of privacy." But it explicitly excludes from its definition the communication of any information that is a matter of public record. The Court disagreed with the magistrate's conclusion that Hutchins’ disciplinary record was not a matter of public record. The district court never engaged in the balancing test required by the Open Records Law to determine whether the record is a public record. Since the balancing test is a matter of law, the Court engaged in its own analysis. Although it found factors in favor of both privacy and disclosure, it concluded that the public interest in disclosure was not outweighed by the interest in keeping it private. Thus, Hutchins’ disciplinary record should be considered a matter of public record and his Right of Privacy claim fails. Finally, the Court turned to the only federal claim, the First Amendment retaliation claim. One of the elements of the claim is that there be some retaliatory action, although it need not rise to the level of an adverse employment action. It must be enough of an action, however, to chill further speech. Here, the retaliatory action is itself speech, which also must be afforded some protection. The Court looked to other circuits and district courts within its circuit and agreed that for such speech to be retaliatory, it must be threatening, harassing, or intimidating. Concluding that Sheriff Clarke's speech was not, the Court reversed the First Amendment retaliation claim.

Judge Williams wrote separately, concurring in the opinion and expressing her views on the panel's disposition of the First Amendment retaliation claim. Judge Williams emphasized the Court's precedent that retaliatory speech that is likely to deter a person for exercising First Amendment rights may be actionable, even if not threatening, harassing, or intimidating.

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

MARCAVAGE v. CITY OF CHICAGO (October 4, 2011)

In July of 2006, Chicago played host to the seventh annual Gay Games, which consisted of a number of athletic and cultural events over several days. A number of volunteers from Repent America, a Christian ministry, appeared at various Gay Game venues to share their particular message about homosexuality. On July 15, the volunteers demonstrated around Soldier Field, where the opening ceremonies were taking place. A Chicago police officer directed the group off a public sidewalk and onto an adjacent gravel field. On July 16, volunteers arrived at Navy Pier for a similar demonstration. Again, Chicago police officers directed the group away from Navy Pier and the adjacent Gateway Park because they did not have a permit. A few volunteers were ultimately arrested. On July 22, one of the volunteers paced back and forth on the sidewalk outside of Wrigley Field, where the closing ceremonies were taking place. A Chicago police officer arrested him when he refused to stop his demonstration and "keep walking." The Repent America volunteers filed suit against the City of Chicago, several police officers, and the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority (which owns Navy Pier and Gateway Park). They alleged violations of the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, the Fourth Amendment, the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and state law. Judge Shadur (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Manion, and Hamilton affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court first addressed the First Amendment and equal protection claims related to the activities at Soldier Field and Wrigley Field. The Court conceded that the public sidewalks outside these two venues are traditional public forums and that access could not be broadly denied. But the time, place, and manner of activities at those locations can be regulated if the regulation: a) is content neutral, b) is narrowly tailored in support of a significant government interest, and c) allows for alternatives. The Court found that the police conduct at Soldier Field and Wrigley Field met those requirements. Plaintiffs presented no evidence of any police hostility to their message and, at both venues, they were simply directed away from busy pedestrian sidewalks and into locations where they could, and did, deliver their message. There was no First Amendment violation. The Court also concluded that there was no equal protection violation, in that plaintiffs were unable to identify similarly situated individuals that received preferential treatment. The Court also concluded that the arrest at Wrigley Field was not a Fourth Amendment violation. There was probable cause to believe that the volunteer was committing the offense of disorderly conduct. The Court turned to the allegations concerning the demonstration at Navy Pier and Gateway Park. The MPEA has a written policy for public expression at those venues. The policy requires a permit. The Court upheld the policy with respect to Navy Pier. Navy Pier is principally a private enterprise with some public benefits. The Policy for permits is first-come, first-served and viewpoint neutral. The volunteers never applied for a permit and there is no evidence in the record that the MPEA was hostile toward their views. Unlike Navy Pier, Gateway Park is a traditional public forum. The policy must be considered under the content neutral, narrowly tailored, ample alternative test. The Court was particularly troubled by the requirement that a group as small as five had to apply for a permit and give seven days notice and that a group smaller than five (including, apparently, an individual) also had to apply for a permit but without any notice requirement. The Court noted that five of its sister circuits have found permit requirements for groups as small as 10 constitutionally suspect. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the constitutionality of the Gateway Park permit requirement had to be considered in light of all the facts and circumstances, which were not addressed below. It remanded the claim for further proceedings. For much the same reasons as applied to the Soldier Field and Wrigley Field claims, the equal protection and Fourth Amendment summary judgment orders relating to Navy Pier and Gateway Park were affirmed.

Judge Hamilton concurred with the parts of the opinion relating to Soldier Field, Wrigley Field, and Navy Peer. He dissented from that portion of the opinion remanding the Gateway Park claims to the district court. He posited that plaintiffs waived the argument by not presenting it in a timely manner in the district court.

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

DOE v. ELMBROOK SCHOOL DISTRICT (September 9, 2011)

Prior to 2000, Brookfield Central and Brookfield East High Schools in Brookfield, Wisconsin held their graduation ceremonies in their gymnasiums. The venues were generally considered quite uncomfortable -- hot, cramped, uncomfortable seating. Central's senior class officers for the Class of 2000 recommended to the school and District that the ceremony be moved to the Elmbrook Church, a local non-denominational Christian institution. The school adopted the recommendation and held its graduation ceremony at the Church from 2000 until 2010, when it moved the ceremony to its newly-constructed district fieldhouse. Brookfield East traveled a similar path and held its graduation ceremony at the Church from 2002 until 2010. Both the inside and the outside of the Church reflect its Christian heritage. There are crosses and other religious symbols outside the church. The lobby, through which all visitors must pass, contains religious banners and symbols as well as tables with religious literature. A large cross hangs in the sanctuary, where the ceremony takes place. Bibles and hymnals can be found in all the pews. Several parents objected to the ceremonies' venue. A group of current and former students and their parents brought suit against the District alleging that the practice violated the First Amendment. Chief Judge Clevert (E.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to the District. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum (dissenting in part), and Ripple affirmed. The Court first addressed justiciability, given the renovation of both gymnasiums and the construction of a new fieldhouse. All 2010 ceremonies were held in those facilities and the District has no present intention to use the Church again. But the Supreme Court has said that a defendant's voluntary decision to stop allegedly wrongful conduct does not make a case moot unless the party seeking mootness meets a heavy burden of proving that the behavior cannot be expected to recur. The District did not meet that burden. Although the District does not currently intend to use the Church again, it has not officially ruled it out. Next, the Court addressed the fact that the plaintiffs were proceeding anonymously, as Does. Although anonymous litigation is disfavored and the Court was mildly critical of the district court's failure to explain his reasoning in granting the motion, the Court nevertheless found no abuse of discretion. Nothing in the record suggests that the district court did not carefully consider the question and apply the proper legal standard and the basis for the ruling is fairly apparent from the eight sworn declarations presented by the plaintiffs. Given the intensely emotional nature of religious beliefs and the fact that some of the plaintiffs are children, the district court was well within its discretion to conclude that the plaintiffs' privacy interest outweighed the public interest in transparent judicial proceedings. The Court turned to the merits. The Supreme Court developed a three-pronged test in Lemon for Establishment Clause cases. A practice violates the clause if it has no legitimate secular purpose, if it advances or inhibits religion as its primary effect, or if it fosters excessive entanglement with religion. The Court concluded that the District did not violate the First Amendment: a) the students were not forced to participate in any religious exercise, as was the case in Lee, b) the iconography was not associated with the District, c) an objective observer would not assume that the presence of religious paraphernalia suggested the District’s endorsement thereof, d) the District has not sponsored any religious display, e) the students and the district selected the Church for totally secular purposes, f) there is no evidence that the Church used the event to influence the ceremony or that the District used the event to endorse religion, and g) the use of taxpayer funds for the Church rental was appropriate as a standard fee for use arrangement.

Judge Flaum concurred in the majority's opinion with respect to justiciability and anonymity but dissented on the merits. He concluded that a public school graduation at a church where there are both live human beings and inanimate objects urging religious messages on children violated the Establishment Clause. In his view, the venue's "sheer religiosity" conveyed a message of District endorsement.

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

HARRIS v. QUINN (September 1, 2011)

The Illinois Department of Human Services runs two programs that provide in-home care to Illinois residents. One is operated by the Division of Rehabilitation Services and the other is operated by the Division of Developmental Disabilities. In both programs, eligible individuals work with program counselors to develop individual service plans. In the Rehabilitation Program, once a service plan is in place, the eligible individual may select any qualified personal assistant to implement the plan. The individual and the assistant enter into employment agreement, the terms of which are dictated by the Department. In 2003, after the Illinois legislature passed a law designating the personal assistants as state employees for collective bargaining purposes, a majority of the Rehabilitation Program personal assistants voted to unionize. A majority of the Disability Program personal assistants rejected unionization. The collective bargaining agreement between the Rehabilitation Program Union and the State contains a "fair share" provision that requires personal assistants who are not members of the union to pay a proportionate share of the collective bargaining costs. In 2010, personal assistants from both programs filed suit against the Governor and the unions. They alleged that the fair share fees violated the First Amendment. The Disability Program personal assistants alleged that they were harmed by the threat of a future agreement. Judge Johnson-Coleman (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the Rehabilitation Program claim for failure to state a claim and dismissed the Disability Program claim on jurisdictional grounds. The personal assistants appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Manion, Wood, and Hamilton affirmed and remanded. The Court first addressed the Rehabilitation Program plaintiffs. It remarked that there is a long line of Supreme Court cases approving fair share agreements. The Court rejected plaintiffs' contention that the Supreme Court cases were not controlling because the personal assistants are employees of the patients, not the state. The Court relied on the ordinary definition of employer -- one who directs the activities of a worker under a contract and pays his wages -- as well as the concept that an employee can have more than one employer. The Court gave the legislative designation no weight but, instead, looked at the State's relationship to the personal assistants. It concluded that the state has significant control -- it sets qualifications, defines job responsibilities through the service plan, and pays the wages, among other things. The Court concluded that this significant amount of control made the State an employer. It also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the Supreme Court cases should not apply because of their unique circumstances. The Court turned to the Disabilities Program personal assistants’ claim. It agreed with the district court that that claim was not ripe in that it rested on future events that may or may not occur. The Court did conclude that the district court erred in dismissing the Disability Program claim with prejudice. A claim dismissed on ripeness grounds is typically dismissed without prejudice. The Court remanded for the proper dismissal.

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

WISCONSIN INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION v. GANNETT CO. (August 24, 2011)

The Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association is a non-profit organization comprised of all (with a few exceptions) Wisconsin public high schools as well as many private high schools and public and private junior high and middle schools. Its purpose is to regulate interscholastic sports and promote good sportsmanship. The Association sponsors post-season tournaments. Pursuant to its media policy, the Association retains the exclusive right to transmit or stream live content during those games and further reserves the right to grant those rights to others. The policy prohibits any other live coverage of a game but allows the use of up to two minutes to be used in a regularly scheduled sports or news program or Internet story. The Association has had exclusive broadcast agreements for a number of decades. In 2005, however, the Association entered into a ten-year agreement with American-HiFi, pursuant to which American obtained exclusive rights to stream events online. The Association's policy and the American contract provided that a newspaper could stream a game live for a fee if American chose not to do so. Some local newspapers were unhappy with the Association’s stance. When a local Gannett newspaper streamed four football games online without permission, the Association filed an action for declaratory judgment. Gannett removed the case to federal court and filed counterclaims challenging several aspects of the Association's policies. It asserted violations of the First and Fourteenth amendments under § 1983. Chief Judge Conley (W.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to the Association. He found that: neither the American contract nor the fee the Association charged a newspaper to stream a game violated the First Amendment, the Association did not have too much discretion to refuse streaming licenses, and the newspapers had no copyright in the games they streamed. Gannett appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Wood, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court first addressed its jurisdiction, since there is no diversity and the Court concluded that there was no federal Copyright Act issue in the case. Since the case was one for declaratory judgment, the Court looked to the hypothetical well-pleaded complaint had the defendant brought suit. In that hypothetical complaint, Gannett alleges that the Association (a state actor) is violating its First Amendment rights. That claim clearly arises under federal law. Turning to the merits, the Court emphasized that the state actor, the Association, was acting in a proprietary rather than regulatory capacity. When acting in a regulatory capacity, a state's actions must merely be reasonable under the First Amendment. The Court rejected Gannett's viewpoint bias argument, both on the ground that there was no such bias and on the ground that the viewpoint neutrality rule was simply not applicable in this context. The Association is free to promote values of its own choosing, either directly or through contractual relationships. The Supreme Court, in its Zacchini decision, distinguished between a newspaper's right to report on an event and its right (or absence thereof) to broadcast the entire event. The case also makes it clear that an entertainment producer can charge a fee in exchange for the right to broadcast an event. Although Zacchini concerned private actors, Forbes applied the same principles to state actors. Applying those principles to the facts, the Court concluded that the Association's contract with American did not run afoul of the First Amendment. The Court turned to the question of the Association's raising revenue through its contract. It found Gannett's argument "radical and unsupported" and foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent.

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

EVERETT v. COOK COUNTY (August 24, 2011)

Cook County, Illinois faced a severe budget crisis in 2006. The County President instructed the Chief of the Bureau of Health to submit budget cut recommendations. One of the Bureau of Health functions was the Cermak Health Services, which provided medical and dental services to Cook County Jail inmates. The budget team identified Cermak’s dental program as a good source of some budget cuts. The Bureau Chief agreed to a recommendation that reduced the number of dentists from five to one. In deciding whom to keep among the five, the County looked for management experience, flexibility, productivity, and skills. The County ultimately chose Dr. Ronald Townsend as the dentist who best met those criteria. One of the five dentists who was not chosen was Dr. Carol Everett, a Caucasian woman who had been with Cermak for almost 25 years. Dr. Everett filed an appeal, which was denied. Everett filed suit under Title VII, alleging ethnicity discrimination, and under § 1983 and the Shakman decree, alleging political discrimination. Judge Kendall (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the County. Everett appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Kanne, Evans (who, due to his death, did not participate in the decision), and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed and rejected Everett's spoliation argument that the County destroyed certain documents containing notes concerning the layoffs. First, she did not identify any evidence of bad faith, a requirement before a negative inference is imposed. Second, the record does not support a conclusion that the documents were destroyed to eliminate adverse evidence. On the merits, the Court first addressed her political activity discrimination claim, in which she alleges that the decision to retain Everett was due to his political donations. The Shakman decree and the First Amendment prohibit firing an employee for political reasons. Under both theories, however, the plaintiff must show a causal relationship between the employment decision and the political considerations. Everett relied on procedural irregularities in the process to establish that causal relationship. The Court concluded, however, that her evidence was insufficient to establish such a relationship. Even if such a relationship had been established, however, Everett would still fall short because there is no evidence in the record that the decision-makers were aware of the political activity -- or lack thereof -- of either Everett or Townsend. The Court turned to the ethnicity discrimination claim. It concluded that Everett failed to show pretext. Although she provided some evidence of her possible superiority to Townsend in some areas, it was insufficient to show that the reasons the County gave for selecting Townsend were suspect. At most, they could show that the County made a hurried, poorly researched, and possibly poor decision. That is not enough to show pretext.

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

MADDOX v. LOVE (August 24, 2011)

The Illinois Lawrence Correctional Center is a medium-security adult prison facility in Sumner, Illinois with approximately 2,000 inmates. Those inmates proclaim numerous different religious affiliations (46 as of May 2009). When Mannie Maddox arrived as an inmate in early 2004, he was a member of the African Hebrew Israelite (AHI) faith. AHI was one of the 17 religious affiliations for which Lawrence offered regularly scheduled services. Maddox attended services for about six months, until they were terminated. Maddox filed a grievance, asserting a denial of his right to exercise his religion. The prison denied the grievance on the grounds that Lawrence canceled the services for budgetary reasons. Maddox appealed the decision through two more stages of review without success. The prison chaplain also denied Maddox’ request to allow the AHI inmates to meet without a formal service. The prison requires that such meetings be supervised and the chaplain's schedule could not accommodate another religious gathering. Maddox filed a § 1983 complaint against the chaplain and the prison wardens alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Judge Gilbert (S.D. Ill.) restructured the pro se complaint into four counts. He dismissed for failure to state a claim the counts relating to discrimination in the allocation of the prison budget. He granted summary judgment on the two counts alleging failure to provide reasonable access to religious materials and failure to provide worship services, concluding that Maddox failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Maddox appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Sykes, Tinder, and Hamilton affirmed in part and reversed and vacated in part. The Court first addressed its jurisdiction, since the district court dismissed the two counts on exhaustion grounds without prejudice. Normally a dismissal without prejudice would preclude appellate jurisdiction. Here, however, Maddox cannot cure the complaint’s defects. That makes the decision a final judgment for appellate jurisdiction purposes. On the merits, the Court first addressed the free exercise and religious discrimination counts. The Court understood the district court's dismissal of these counts, as they were restructured, given the principle that prisons need not provide identical resources to every faith within the prison population. An allegation of a disproportionate allocation of resources does not state a claim. The Court did find fault, however, with the district court's restructuring of Maddox' allegations and explored the substance of those allegations. Maddox alleged a disproportionate allocation of resources to other religions, a singling out of AHI for budget cuts, and refusal to pursue alternatives for AHI members. The Court found that those allegations did, in fact, state a claim for relief. Prisons cannot discriminate against particular religions. Although it is premature to conclude that they did here, Maddox is allowed to make his case. The Court turned to the access to religious materials claim. Since Maddox concedes that he did not grieve that complaint, the Court concluded that the district court properly dismissed that count. Finally, on the group worship claim, the district court dismissed because Maddox failed to exhaust administrative remedies. He did not name the individuals he complained of, as required by the then-current Illinois Administrative Code. The Court disagreed. First, prison officials never raised this procedural infirmity during any of the three grievance stages. Instead, they rejected the grievance on the merits at each stage. When the prison addresses a grievance on the merits without addressing any procedural defect, the grievance has obviously served its purpose in notifying prison officials of the prisoner's complaint. They cannot later rely on that procedural defect to make out an exhaustion defense. Second, the procedural infirmity here was caused by prison's own error. Maddox was given a form that complied with a prior version of the administrative code. It did not require the same degree of factual particularly as did the code in effect at the time of the grievance. Maddox provided all the information that was requested on the grievance form.

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

WOODS v. COMMISSIONER OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (July 19, 2011)

In 2005, the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Corrections suspected that inmates were using pen-pal internet sites to fraudulently obtain money. The Commissioner ordered an investigation. An investigator reviewed pen-pal websites, interviewed several pen-pals, read the online profiles of hundreds of inmates, and investigated the source of funds deposited into inmates' trust accounts. The investigation concluded that most inmates misrepresent themselves on pen-pal websites and that some pen-pals felt deceived by inmates but it was unable to substantiate any meaningful financial fraud. Nevertheless, the investigator recommended capping inmates' trust accounts, limiting the source of trust account funds to family members and other authorized individuals, and prohibiting inmates from soliciting money or advertising for pen-pals. The Department adopted the latter two recommendations. Inmates brought a class action suit against the Department, alleging that the regulations violated the First Amendment. Judge Magnus-Stinson (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the Department. The inmates appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Posner, and Manion affirmed. The Court first noted that First Amendment rights can be curtailed more broadly in the present context than otherwise. A prison regulation need only be "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests" to be upheld. And even the plaintiffs concede that the department has a legitimate interest in preventing inmates from fraudulently soliciting money from pen-pals. The only question, therefore, is whether the limitations adopted by the Department are reasonably related to that objective. To be so, the regulation must have a valid and rational connection with the objective, the inmates must have alternative ways of exercising their rights, the impact on the rest of the prison community and staff must be considered, and there may not be a less restrictive alternative that achieves the same goal. The Court found the test met. First, the regulation is directly related to the goal of preventing fraud. Second, the inmates have alternative ways of exercising their First Amendment rights. They can still send and receive letters, they receive newspapers and magazines, and they can even develop pen-pals through groups that visit the prison. Third, it is reasonable to believe that lifting the ban would result in more inmate fraud and put a greater burden on prison staff. Finally, the Court rejected the inmates' contention that the source limitation for inmates' trust accounts was a sufficient alternative, without the additional pen-pal solicitation ban. It recognized that the source limitation could be very effective but deferred to the prison administrators' judgment that the ban was also required.

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

 EZELL v. CITY OF CHICAGO (July 6, 2011)

A few days after the Supreme Court found Chicago's handgun ban unconstitutional in McDonald, the Chicago City Council passed the Responsible Gun Owners Ordinance. Among other things, the ordinance required one hour of range training for gun ownership but prohibited firing ranges in the city. Several Chicago residents and three interested organizations brought suit, alleging that the range ban violates the Second Amendment. They sought a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction. Judge Kendall (N.D. Ill.) denied the TRO and held a hearing on the preliminary injunction. After hearing testimony, the court denied injunctive relief on the grounds that plaintiffs were not irreparably harmed and were not likely to succeed on the merits. The court also found the balance of harm to favor the City of Chicago. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rovner (concurring in the judgment), and Sykes reversed and remanded with instructions to enter the preliminary injunction. The Court first addressed irreparable injury and adequate remedy at law. It took issue with the district court's focus on the incidental travel burdens that the ordinance imposed. First, constitutional harm cannot be measured by considering whether the right can be exercised in another jurisdiction. Second, the challenge here is a facial challenge, where harm is not measured by reference to particular persons. Third, the Court compared Second Amendment interests to First Amendment interests, where irreparable harm is sometimes presumed. The Court turned to likelihood of success on the merits. Relying principally on Heller and McDonald, the Court described a framework for resolving Second Amendment litigation. The first question, which requires an historical inquiry, is whether the activity in question is even protected by the Second Amendment. For example, Heller pointed out that some restrictions might survive a challenge because the right at issue was not understood to be a public right at the time the Second (or Fourteenth) Amendment was ratified. The second inquiry is into the justification for the restriction -- the regulatory means and the public benefits end. The nature of the standard of review depends on how close the right is to the core of the Amendment and the severity of the burden imposed. The Court then applied the framework to Chicago's ordinance and first concluded that range training is not outside the protection of the Second Amendment. The "central component" of the Amendment -- the right to keep and bear arms -- would mean little without the right to train and practice. The court distinguished the eighteenth and nineteenth century statutes and regulations cited by Chicago as being merely regulatory or time, place, and manner restrictions. The Court proceeded to the second inquiry and used First Amendment jurisprudence to decide which form of heightened scrutiny was appropriate. It stated that a severe burden on a core right requires strong public interest justification and a close fit between means and the end. More modest burdens on less court rights need less justification. Here, the ordinance is a total ban on a right close to the core of the Second Amendment. The City must satisfy something more rigorous than intermediate scrutiny. The Court found that Chicago had failed to come close. All of its evidence with speculative or conclusory or could be countered with much less burdensome regulatory efforts. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs had a strong likelihood of success on the merits. For much the same reason, the Court concluded that the balance of harms favored the plaintiffs. It ordered that an appropriate injunction be entered on remand.

Judge Rovner wrote separately, concurring in the judgment. She pointed out that the right at issue was not all firearms training but was limited to live training at a firing range. Other types of training, including simulated training, are not at issue and may be enough to make the core right meaningful. She therefore did not agree that the right was as close to the core as the rest of the panel and that, as result, required more than intermediate scrutiny. She also found support in the eighteenth and nineteenth century regulations distinguished by the majority.

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

WACKETT v. CITY OF BEAVER DAM (June 13, 2011)

Daniel Wackett worked for the Department of Public Works in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin from 1972 until his retirement in 2009. In 2003, he was responsible for evaluating three bids for a front-end loader needed by the City. At a Board of Public Works meeting, he and his supervisor, the Director of Public Works, both recommended the John Deere front-end loader. The Board voted to recommend to the City Council the more expensive Caterpillar front-end loader. Wackett spoke out against the decision. He even claimed that the Board was improperly influenced. He persuaded a local businessman to write a letter criticizing the recommendation. The local newspaper printed the letter. After numerous citizen complaints, the Board changed its recommendation and the City purchased the John Deere front-end loader. After that incident, the Board refused to promote Wackett. Twice, they appointed someone else Director. From 2004 to 2009, Smith actually served as Acting Director but the Board refused to appoint him to the position. Wackett brought suit pursuant to § 1983. He alleged that the City and Board retaliated against him on account of his speech. Judge Griesbach (E.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Wackett appeals

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Williams affirmed. There are three prongs to a First Amendment retaliation claim: a) constitutionally protected speech, b) but-for causation, and c) a deprivation. With respect to the first prong, the Supreme Court in Garcetti held that a public employee's statements in his official capacity are not protected speech. Here, most of Wackett's speech was made in his official capacity and is not protected. To the extent he engaged in protected speech in conversations with the businessman and other citizens, he presented no evidence that the defendants were aware of that speech. With respect to that speech, therefore, he cannot establish causation.

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

GIRL SCOUTS OF MANITOU COUNCIL v. GIRL SCOUTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (May 31, 2011)

The Girl Scouts of the United States of America is the national Girl Scouts organization. It charters local councils, authorizing them to use the "Girl Scout" mark and sell Girl Scout cookies. One of those councils is the Manitou Counsel in eastern Wisconsin. Several years ago, the national organization decided to reduce the number of local councils. Manitou was one of the councils that would disappear under the reorganization. Manitou brought suit under the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law. It obtained a preliminary injunction stopping the restructuring. However, on the merits, Judge Stadtmueller (E.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to the national organization, concluding that applying the Wisconsin law to the national organization would violate their First Amendment freedom of expression rights. Manitou appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne, and Tinder affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The Court rejected the First Amendment argument. Although the national organization's activities do include protected expression, that does not mean they are exempt from state laws that have a remote, at worst, impact on that expression. The national organization claims that its First of Amendment protection comes from its attempts to reorganize its structure to become more racially and ethnically diverse. The Court noted that there was actually no evidence in the record connecting diversity with the reorganization. Without that connection, the argument fails. The Court turned to the alternative argument, rejected by the district court, that the national organization's activities do not violate the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law. The Court first refused to recognize a statutory exemption for non-profits. Next, the Court concluded that the statute required "good cause" to eliminate the council entirely, even though the national organization had the right to alter territory boundaries. They Court wrestled with a definition of "good cause" but ultimately found no need to resolve it. It concluded that: a) the national organization abandoned its argument that business reasons provided the good cause, and b) it found its argument that its expressive activity provided good cause unsupported by the record. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the common law claims and ordered the reinstatement of the injunction.

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

MERCATUS GROUP, LLC v. LAKE FOREST HOSPITAL (May 26, 2011)

Mercatus Group and Evanston Northwestern Healthcare planned to build a medical center in Lake Bluff, Illinois. A short distance away stood Lake Forest Hospital. Threatened by the competition the new medical center would create, the Hospital attempted to stop the project. Its strategy took several forms. First, it lobbied Lake Bluff officials to deny necessary approvals. Second, it encouraged Hospital employees and community members to do the same through a public relations campaign. Third, it disparaged Mercatus to its partner. Fourth, it offered incentives to two practice groups that intended to leave the Hospital, in order to get them to stay. The Hospital's campaign was quite successful. Mercatus never opened the medical center. Instead, it brought suit under the Sherman Act, alleging that the Hospital had monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for physician services. Judge Manning (N.D. Ill.) dismissed some of the case for failure to state a claim and granted summary judgment to the Hospital on the rest. She concluded that the Hospital’s lobbying activity was protected by the First Amendment and that the other conduct did not violate the antitrust laws. Mercatus appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Manion, and Hamilton affirmed. Mercatus concedes that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine would immunize the Hospital’s lobbying efforts if they were truthful, but asserts that they fall within the fraud exception and are not immunized. But the Noerr-Pennington fraud exception only applies to adjudicative proceedings. So the Court proceeded to consider whether the Village Board proceedings were legislative or adjudicative. Before considering the number of factors that bear on that question, the Court noted that it had to tread lightly because the fraud exception was an exception to a doctrine created on constitutional grounds. Ultimately the Court concluded that the Board acted legislatively, not adjudicatively. The Board: a) generally makes policy, b) is ill-equipped to conduct adjudicative proceedings, c) conducts its business informally, d) allows ex parte lobbying activity, e) does not follow rules of evidence or hear testimony under oath, and f) operates with significant discretion. Summary judgment on the claim based on the Hospital’s activities before the Village Board was proper. The Court reached the same result for much the same reason with respect to the public relations campaign. The Hospital’s conduct was protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. With respect to the Hospital’s allegedly false communications with other businesses, the Court concluded that they were not related to the lobbying efforts and not immunized. However, the Court also found an absence of any coercive conduct. Even if the statements were false, they are not actionable under the antitrust law. Finally, with respect to the Hospital’s successful efforts to retain physician groups that had originally decided to leave, the Court found no evidence in the record of any anticompetitive conduct. The Hospital is not required to sit back and allow these groups to leave. They simply did what the Mercatus group did to get them to leave – it offered them incentives.

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

CHICAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS v. VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG (May 2, 2011)

The Village of Schaumburg, Illinois, owns the Schaumburg Renaissance Hotel. The Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters represents the hotel's housekeepers. On August 18, 2009, in the midst of stalled collective bargaining negotiations, the Union staged a demonstration. The local police allowed the demonstration to proceed after the Union agreed to follow a specified route and to control noise. When they attempted a repeat performance on August 31, the police turned them away. They filed suit on September 2 under § 1983 alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights. A couple of months later, the Village refused the Union's request to distribute pamphlets at the hotel. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment -- but the Union focused its argument on the pamphlet incident rather than the demonstration incident. Judge Lindberg (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the Village, concluding that the Union forfeited its claims regarding the demonstration and never amended its complaint to address the pamphlet issue. The court denied the Union’s belated request to amend its complaint. The Union appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Posner and Wood and District Judge Adelman affirmed. When the Union filed its complaint in September, it complained only of the August event. The Union never amended its complaint but was abundantly clear in its summary judgment papers that it was abandoning the August claims. The district court was correct in granting summary judgment on the August claim – the only claim before it. Although the Union could have and did request an opportunity to amend, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying that belated request.

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

ZELLNER v. HERRICK (April 29, 2011)

Robert Zellner was a biology teacher at Cedarburg High School in Cedarburg, Wisconsin between 1995 and 2006. He was active in Cedarburg Education Association (the teacher's union) throughout his employment and was its president between 2003 and 2005. The relationship between the District and the Union during this time was quite strained. During his presidency, Zellner was very publicly critical of the District, in particular Superintendent Daryl Herrick. After his presidency ended in August of 2005, Zellner remained active in the Union but no longer spoke out publicly. Also in August 2005, Zellner signed his consent to a new District computer usage policy. The policy notified District employees that their computer usage was not private and could be monitored, expressly prohibited access to offensive pictures, and warned that any violation could result in disciplinary action. Soon thereafter, the District’s IT Department had to clean up Zellner's computer for a second time. The IT technician reported to her supervisor her opinion that Zellner's computer problems were caused by visiting “questionable” Internet sites. The Director of Technology reported these suspicions to Superintendent Herrick, who ordered monitoring software be placed on the computer. The Director of Technology checked the usage logs from time to time. In December, the log indicated that Zellner had visited a number of pornographic websites. Herrick confronted Zellner, who admitted accessing pornography on the District computer several times and conceded that his actions violated school policy. Zellner refused to resign. The School Board held a disciplinary hearing in January. The Board gave Zellner an opportunity to testify and present evidence. He declined to testify but instead read a statement apologizing for his conduct and admitting using poor judgment. The School Board considered a range of discipline but ultimately chose to fire Zellner. A state trial court and appellate court upheld the termination. Zellner filed suit in federal court, alleging a violation of his due process rights and his First Amendment rights. Judge Randa (E.D. Wis.) dismissed the due process claim and granted summary judgment to the defendants on the First Amendment claim. Zellner appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Evans, and Hamilton affirmed. Although the Court was somewhat critical of the district court's dismissal of the due process claim sua sponte, it nevertheless upheld the dismissal. Even if the Zellner were able to make out a due process claim, the only relief to which he would be entitled was a opportunity to be heard. He was given a hearing and he was given an opportunity to testify. Instead, he read a statement which did not even dispute the charges. He is entitled to no more process. The Court also agreed with the district court's ruling on the First Amendment claim, finding an absence of proof of but-for causation. Notwithstanding the years of animosity between Zellner and the School District, the Court concluded that no jury could find that Zellner's union activities amounted to but-for causation. Zellner admits that he accessed pornography on the District computer and that his conduct violated the District’s policy. Therefore, the School District had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to fire him.

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

FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION v. OBAMA (April 14, 2011)

Presidential proclamations inviting citizens to pray are as old as the country itself, dating back to George Washington. Congress enacted a statute in 1988 that calls on the President to issue an annual proclamation setting aside the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer. President Barack Obama issued such a proclamation on April 30, 2010. Freedom From Religion Foundation filed suit against President Obama and his Press Secretary, alleging that the statute and the proclamations contravene the First Amendment. Judge Crabb (W.D. Wis.) agreed, concluding that the statute and the proclamation violated the First Amendment. She issued an injunction forbidding any further such proclamations. The President and his Press Secretary appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Circuit Judges Manion and Williams (concurring) vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss. The Court first addressed plaintiffs’ standing and found it lacking. In order to establish standing, one must show injury, causation, and redressability. The statute itself imposes a duty only on the President. The plaintiffs do not have standing to object to a statute that imposes duties only on others. But the proclamation is addressed to all citizens, including the plaintiffs. The proclamation, however, imposes no duty -- it simply makes a request. Plaintiffs cannot show any injury caused by such a request. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Newdow and Valley Forge Christian College as controlling precedent.

Judge Williams concurred in a separate opinion. She distinguished Newdow, disagreed with what she thought was the majority's conclusion that a change in behavior is required for standing, noted a number of Supreme Court decisions on the merits where the standing injury is hard to distinguish from that of the Foundation, but ultimately concluded that Valley Forge precludes standing.

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

HERNANDEZ v. COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE (February 24, 2011)

Several Cook County Jail inmates escaped in February of 2006. Jail authorities immediately suspected that the escapees had inside help. One guard admitted his involvement. Six additional guards came under suspicion. Internal and criminal investigations were conducted. Several of the guards were suspended with pay. The guards also claimed they were treated harshly during the investigation and discouraged from contacting the union or an attorney. Ultimately, one guard was suspended for five days and two left the department. Administrative charges were dropped against the other three. The six guards brought suit against the Sheriff's office alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights, and included state law intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment claims. They claimed that the investigation was in retaliation for their safety complaints (the plaintiffs allegedly complained about security and overcrowding problems in the jails) and political views (the head of their unit was running for Sheriff against the incumbent sheriff's Chief of Staff). The defendants moved to dismiss the constitutional claims on qualified immunity grounds and the state law claims on statutory immunity grounds. The court never ruled on that motion. The defendants later moved for summary judgment, but only briefly argued qualified immunity and did not argue statutory immunity in their opening brief. Judge Guzman (N.D. Ill.) a) granted summary judgment on the merits on the retaliation claim based on safety complaints, b) denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim based on political views, c) denied the request for qualified immunity, concluding that defendants had waived it, and d) denied summary judgment with respect to the state law claims. Defendants appeal only the denial of qualified immunity on the constitutional claims.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Flaum, and Wood reversed and remanded. The Court noted that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is ordinarily not appealable. It is, however, when the requested grounds for summary judgment is qualified immunity and when the denial involves only legal issues. Since a finding of waiver is a legal issue, the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Court seemed to have little difficulty in concluding that the district court erred in finding waiver. Although an underdeveloped argument can amount to waiver, it does so only when it provides inadequate notice of the argument. Here, defendants have argued qualified immunity from the beginning of the case. They argued in their motion to dismiss, they argued unambiguously (albeit briefly) in their opening summary judgment brief in a section captioned "Qualified Immunity," and they argued it at length in their reply brief. Arguments raised for the first time in reply briefs are generally considered waived, but arguments more fully developed in reply briefs do not necessarily suffer the same fate. The plain fact is that plaintiffs were on notice of the argument and defendants treatment of it did not constitute a waiver. Finding no waiver, the Court addressed the merits of the argument. The familiar test has two prongs -- whether the defendants violated a constitutional right and, if so, whether that right was clearly established at the time. When the constitutional violation concerns a public employee's First Amendment rights, a court first must determine whether the speech involves a matter of public concern. If it does, the court applies a balancing test. If it does not, the employee is not entitled to constitutional protection. Based on the district court's findings on the safety complaint retaliation claims, the Court was able to determine as a matter of law that the speech did not involve a matter of public concern. The plaintiffs were acting in response to their duties as employees and are not entitled to constitutional protection. Therefore, there was no constitutional violation, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. With respect to the political retaliation claim, however, the Court was unable to reach such a conclusion. The district court failed to identify the disputed and undisputed facts, nor did it make any findings regarding materiality. The Court remanded for that purpose.

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

DELAPAZ v. RICHARDSON (February 14, 2011)

Pablo Delapaz and Michael Sarkauskas are both employees of the City of Chicago's Department of Streets and Sanitation (DSS). They are also both supporters of the Hispanic Democratic Organization. In 2001 in 2002, DSS Commissioner Al Sánchez appointed both men to temporary acting foremen positions in the Department. Michael Picardi replaced Sanchez as Commissioner several years later. Delapaz and Sarkauskas still occupied their temporary positions. Shortly after Picardi became Commissioner, he ordered the elimination of all acting foreman positions and the return of those employees to their prior positions. When Deputy Commissioner Richardson advised Delapaz that he would have to return to his prior position, he also remarked: "Your guy is gone." Both Delapaz and Sarkauskas assumed their prior positions in the summer of 2005, as did all the other acting foremen. Later that year, the Richardson appointed another man as an acting Foreman for snow removal purposes. That man was a contributor and volunteer for Chicago Alderman Richard Mell. Delapaz and Sarkauskas filed suit against Deputy Commissioner Richardson under § 1983, alleging that he violated their First Amendment rights of free association by demoting them because of their HDO affiliation. Judge Marovich (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to Richardson. Delapaz and Sarkauskas appeal.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Flaum and Evans and District Judge McCuskey affirmed. The Court agreed that a public employee’s firing or demotion because of his or her political affiliation is a First Amendment violation. But to state a claim against a particular defendant, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant participated or caused the deprivation. In their summary judgment response pursuant to local rule, plaintiffs admitted that Picardi ordered the demotions, not Richardson. Courts are entitled to rely on these admissions. In light of the admission, the plaintiffs cannot establish Richardson's liability. The Court did cite another reason why they could not prevail: they waived the Richardson liability argument by not addressing it in their response brief in the district court. And the Court cited yet a third reason why they could not prevail: the merits. The only evidence the plaintiffs presented that Richardson even knew of their HDO affiliation is the "your guy" remark he made to Delapaz, an apparent reference to Sanchez. But they presented no evidence that Sanchez was even affiliated with HDO or, if he was, that Richardson knew about it. And they presented no evidence at all that Richardson knew of Sarkauskas’ HDO affiliation -- only that the timing of his demotion (two weeks after Delapaz) was suspicious. Without a triable issue of fact on whether he knew of their party affiliation, Richardson is entitled to summary judgment.

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

SMITH v. PETERS (January 19, 2011)

Anthony Smith was incarcerated in Indiana state prison. He brought suit against prison employees, alleging violations of the First and Eighth amendments. According to the allegations of his complaint, he was a) forced to work outside in freezing conditions without protective equipment (including gloves), b) forced to work in a group with axes and shovels without receiving safety instruction, and c) retaliated against for filing grievances complaining about the work conditions. Chief Judge Young (S.D. Ind.) dismissed the complaint, concluding that a) the outdoor work was merely "the usual discomforts of winter" and b) Smith's fear of dangerous working conditions was not actionable in the absence of a physical injury. He did not address the First Amendment claim. Smith appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Wood, and Williams reversed and remanded. On the protective clothing claim, the Court stated that the allegations of forcing Smith to work in freezing conditions without gloves is sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment Claim. On the dangerous conditions claim, the Court agreed that Smith was not entitled to injunctive relief (because he had been transferred to another prison) or compensatory damages (because of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)’s a physical injury requirement). However, the complaint's allegation of a reckless exposure to serious physical injury does state an Eighth Amendment claim and the Court concluded that Smith is entitled to seek remedies not precluded by § 1997e (including nominal and punitive damages). Finally, the Court noted that the complaint stated a claim for a First Amendment violation and the district court erred by not addressing it.

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

NORMAN-NUNNERY v. MADISON AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE (November 8, 2010)

Elvira Jimenez brought a race discrimination lawsuit in 2000 against Madison Area Technical College and three of its employees (Carol Bassett, Jackie Thomas, and William Stryker). Her lawyer was Willie Nunnery. The suit was dismissed as frivolous -- Nunnery was sanctioned and lost his law license for a period of time because of his involvement in the case. On two separate occasions in the following few years, Judy Norman-Nunnery applied for positions at the College. Norman-Nunnery is an African-American woman and is married to Willie Nunnery. In 2002, she made it through an initial screening but was not interviewed. In 2005, she was encouraged to apply for a different position by the College's minority recruiter and Eugene Fujimoto, its Diversity Coordinator. Carol Bassett screened the 77 applicants for minimum qualifications. Norman-Nunnery and 45 others advanced. At that point, a five-person selection committee chaired by Jackie Thomas developed a weighted scoring system with five criteria. Each committee member separately scored the remaining 46 candidates. The College selected the top 10 to interview. Norman-Nunnery was not in the top 10. In fact, only one minority candidate made the list. Under the College’s diversity policy, it added the next two highest-scoring minority candidates to the interview list. Norman-Nunnery was not one of those two, either. Fujimoto met with Basset, Thomas, and William Stryker to discuss why Norman-Nunnery did not make the cut. They told him that she did not score well on two of the five criteria. Although he advised Bassett, Thomas, and Stryker that her resume may not have accurately reflected her experience, they chose not to add her to the interview list. A white woman was hired for the job. Norman-Nunnery filed suit against the College as well as Bassett, Stryker, and Thomas. She alleged violations of Title VII, the 1st and 14th amendment, and § 1981 for discriminating against her on account of her race and her association with her husband. Judge Crabb (W.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that no rational jury could conclude that race or marital status was the motivation for the defendants' actions. Norman-Nunnery appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Rovner affirmed. The Court first addressed Norman-Nunnery's argument that she was entitled to a spoliation inference due to the unexplained loss of a number of documents relevant to her claim. It concluded that she was not. To be entitled to an inference that the missing documents would support her claim, she must show that the documents were intentionally destroyed in bad faith in order to hide adverse information. Here, the files were lost before any claim was made and there is no evidence that they were intentionally destroyed in order to cover up harmful evidence. The Court cited the fact that the office in which they were located had moved twice, that the filing system was haphazard, and that in fact most of the documents relevant to the claim were not lost. Without evidence of a bad-faith motive, Norman-Nunnery is not entitled to a favorable inference. On the merits, Norman-Nunnery proceeded under both the direct and indirect approaches. Her only claimed direct evidence, however, once the inference was rejected, is an unscientific study that concluded that the College's selection process favored internal candidates. Since most internal candidates were not minorities, the process therefore favored non-minorities. The Court stated that such a study cannot, by itself, meet the standard for a discrimination claim and rejected the claim under the direct method. In reviewing a case like this under the indirect method, the analysis of the prima facie case and the defendants' non-discriminatory reason response frequently overlap. Norman-Nunnery must show that she was qualified and that defendants rejected her in favor of someone of like qualifications. The defendants, on the other hand, assert as their non-discriminatory reason that Norman-Nunnery was not as qualified as those interviewed and as the individual who was hired. The undisputed facts in this case established that the defendants applied the same criteria to all applicants and made their decision based on the applicants' qualifications. Summary judgment on her race discrimination claim was appropriate. For much the same reason, the Court rejected her claim that she was discriminated against because of her husband. There was some evidence that at least some of the defendants knew who her husband was and continued to have negative feelings about him. There was no evidence, however, that the defendants made their hiring decisions because of him.

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

SHERMAN v. KOCH (October 15, 2010)

In 1969, the Illinois legislature authorized, but did not require, public school teachers to "observe a brief period of silence" to be used as "an opportunity for silent prayer or for silent reflection." The legislature added a section to the act in 2002 declaring a student's right to exercise religion freely and to be free from State pressure regarding the exercise or non-exercise of religion. In 2007, the legislature made the brief period of silence mandatory. Dawn Sherman, a public high school student, brought suit through her father under § 1983. She brought a facial challenge under both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge Gettleman (N.D. Ill.) granted a preliminary injunction, certified a plaintiff class of state public school students, certified a defendant class of state public school districts, granted summary judgment to the plaintiff class, and permanently enjoined the statute’s implementation. He concluded that the statute violated the First Amendment in that it failed the first two prongs of the Lemon test (it had no secular purpose and its primary effect was to advance religion). He also concluded that the statute was unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Manion, and Williams (dissenting) reversed. The Court briefly addressed and rejected the argument that Sherman lacked standing because she suffered no damage (since she was only subjected to silence). Sherman alleged that the practice violates the First Amendment. Her status as a student is enough for standing. On the merits, the Court applied the Lemon test. Under Lemon, a statute: a) must have a secular legislative purpose, b) must not primarily advance or inhibit religion, and c) must "not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion." The Court first concluded that the statute had a secular legislative purpose under the first Lemon prong. It relied on the plain meaning of the statute, its context, its legislative history, and the events leading to its passage. It concluded that each of those factors supported the articulated legislative purpose of providing a moment of silence at the beginning of a school day in order to calm the students. The record was very different from the record in Wallace, in which the Supreme Court held that Alabama's similar statute lacked any secular purpose. In fact, the Court found support for its view in the Wallace concurring opinions of Justices O'Connor and Powell. With respect to the second Lemon prong, the Court concluded that the statute's primary effect was not to advance or inhibit religion. The Court relied principally on the statute's language. The statute expressly provided that the brief period of silence could not be conducted as a religious exercise -- and thus did not advance religion. It also expressly provided that the moment of silence was an opportunity for prayer or silent reflection -- and thus did not inhibit religion. Since no one raised the third Lemon prong, the Court concluded that the statute met the test and did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court briefly considered the facial Fourteenth Amendment vagueness challenge. The Due Process Clause does not require perfection and precision, particularly where criminal penalties are not at issue and particularly in a school setting. Although the statute does not provide any details regarding the moment of silence’s logistics, testimony in the record indicates that school districts are quite capable of providing that detail. The facial challenge fails.

Judge Williams dissented from the panel's opinion with respect to the First Amendment challenge. Her view can be gleaned from one sentence in her opinion: ([L]et’s call a spade a state -- statutes like these are about prayer in schools." Notwithstanding the deference that should be shown to the legislature's stated purpose and the fact that there are statements of secular purpose in the record, Judge Williams believed they were pretextual. She relied principally on two things: the specific reference to prayer and the inclusion of prayer as one of (and the first of) two available alternatives for the moment of silence. She believed that the statute endorsed religion and thereby violated the Establishment clause.

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

ANNEX BOOKS, INC. v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS (October 1, 2010)

The City of Indianapolis passed an ordinance that restricted adult bookstores’ hours of operation. After the district court rejected a challenge to the ordinance, the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded (the opinion and intheiropinion). The Court concluded that the evidentiary record did not satisfy intermediate scrutiny. The record evidence it related to the dispersal of adult businesses offering live entertainment -- instead of relating to hours restrictions on businesses not offering live entertainment. On remand, the City offered one additional piece of evidence at a preliminary injunction hearing. It was a study that concluded that Sioux City, Iowa saw a reduction in crime after it dispersed adult businesses. Judge Barker (S.D. Ind.) denied the injunction. The City appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum and Rovner affirmed. The Court found several flaws in the City's position. First, the study, like the earlier evidence, related to a dispersal ordinance, not a restricted-hours ordinance. Second, the study did not control for any other variables (like bars opening or closing, for example). Third, more police protection for adult business patrons is preferable to closing them. Given the state of the record, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction.

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

KINGSTAD v. STATE BAR OF WISCONSIN (September 9, 2010)

Any person who wants to practice law in Wisconsin must join the Wisconsin State Bar and pay the compulsory dues it charges its members. Pursuant to Wisconsin Supreme Court rule, the Bar may fund activities that are related to its purposes but may not fund “political or ideological activities that are not reasonably intended for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal services.” In 2007, the State Bar proposed to use compulsory dues for a public image campaign. Several members objected. An arbitrator ruled in the Bar's favor. On appeal, Magistrate Judge Crocker upheld the finding. The objectors appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Rovner, and Hamilton affirmed. The First Amendment is implicated when a state requires its attorneys to join a group and to provide financial support for that group. The Supreme Court has concluded that some mandatory associations are permissible because they serve legitimate governmental purposes. Mandatory state bars are such associations. There are limits, however, to the types of activities that can be funded by compulsory dues. The Court referred to its 1996 decision in Thiel. In that case, the Court found constitutional a Wisconsin rule that permitted the funding of non-political and non-ideological activities even if they were not germane to the “constitutional purposes” (that is, the purposes that justify the association’s existence under the First Amendment) of the association. In an alternative holding, the Court concluded that the activities at issue were germane to those purposes. Since Thiel, however, the Supreme Court has decided United Foods and the First Circuit has decided Romero. In United Foods, the Supreme Court held that mandatory support for an agricultural collective's generic advertising violated the First Amendment. Although the speech was not political or ideological, the Supreme Court concluded that it was not related to an otherwise proper goal that justified the collective’s existence. Likewise, in Romero, the First Circuit held that a bar association's mandatory life insurance plan violated the First Amendment. The court concluded that mandatory dues are permissible only for activities that were germane to the purposes that justified the association. In light of United Foods and Romero, the Court overruled one of the alternative holding in Thiel and concluded that the State Bar's mandatory dues must be reasonably related to one of its dual constitutional purposes -- regulating the profession or improving the quality of legal services. In applying that standard to the activities in question, the Court adopted a deferential, "reasonably related," standard of review. The Court concluded that the public image campaign expenditures were germane to improving the quality of legal services. The campaign was meant to improve lawyers' public image, which could lead to better client relationships, which could lead to higher-quality services.

Because the panel opinion overruled one of the alternative holdings of Thiel, it was circulated among active service judges. Although no judge favored rehearing en banc on that issue, Judge Sykes favored rehearing on the panel's application of the standard to the activities in question. She wrote separately, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc. She called the panel's approach "procedurally questionable" and "substantively flawed." With respect to procedure, Judge Sykes noted that the arbitrator never ruled on "germaneness" and that there is very little in the record on that issue. She suggested the remand requested by the objectors might be appropriate. With respect to substance, she took exception to the panel's conclusion that the campaign was germane. Not only was there no support in the record for that conclusion, what little there was in the record supported the opposite conclusion. The campaign was about marketing and in the interests of the lawyers, not the public.

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

GOLDHAMER v. NAGODE (September 2, 2010)

Don Goldhamer and Robin Schirmer participated in a peaceful demonstration near a military recruitment booth during the Taste of Chicago festival in the summer of 2006. They expressed their opposition to military recruitment by handing out fliers and speaking to passers-by. The police asked them to relocate to a designated area. When they refused, the police ordered them to leave. Again they refused. They were arrested and charged with a city ordinance violation. The ordinance makes it unlawful to fail to disperse when ordered to do so -- but only in a situation where "three or more persons are committing acts of disorderly conduct in the immediate vicinity, which acts are likely to cause substantial harm.” A state court ultimately dismissed the charges for failure to prosecute. Goldhamer and Schirmer brought suit under § 1983, alleging that the ordinance was facially invalid under the First Amendment and that it was unconstitutionally vague. They sought an injunction and damages. Judge Grady (N.D. Ill.) granted plaintiffs summary judgment on liability and permanently enjoined enforcement of the ordinance. The City appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Hamilton vacated and remanded. The Court first noted that, although the district court had not disposed of all claims, it had limited appellate jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1). Before reaching the merits, the Court addressed the plaintiffs' standing on their request for injunctive relief. Among other things, they must show that a favorable decision from the court will prevent or redress the injury. The Court found that element absent. There is no evidence in the record of any disorderly conduct in their vicinity -- an essential element of the offense for which they were arrested. Given that their conduct was clearly outside the scope of the ordinance, the requested injunction is unlikely to prevent future injury. The Court concluded that this misuse of the ordinance by the Chicago police does not provide a basis on which a federal court should examine the constitutionality of the law. The Court added that plaintiffs of course have standing to challenge their arrest and seek money damages.

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

BADGER CATHOLIC, INC. v. WALSH (September 1, 2010)

Badger Catholic is an approved and registered student organization at the University of Wisconsin. As such, it is eligible to apply for and receive money from the University. The monies come from a University account that is funded by a fee charged to every university student. The Supreme Court approved the University's practice (University of Wisconsin v. Southworth) because it was a neutral, forum-creating program that distributed funds without regard to viewpoint. The University rejected Badger Catholic's request for funds for six different programs. The denial was based on the University's practice of not funding programs that involve "worship, proselytizing, or religious instruction." Judge Adelman (W.D. Wis.) concluded that funding such activity would not violate the Establishment Clause and entered a declaratory judgment requiring the University to fund Badger Catholic on the same basis it funds other organizations. The University appeals -- Badger Catholic cross-appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Evans and Williams (dissenting) affirmed. The Court cited two Supreme Court cases (Widmar and Rosenberger) in support of its conclusion that the district court was correct in its decision that funding the programs would not violate the Establishment Clause. The University also argued that it was permitted to withhold the funds even if the funding did not violate the First Amendment. The Court distinguished the University's reliance on Locke (which permitted a state to exclude ministry study from its scholarship program). The decision in Locke was a form of government speech -- here, the University created a public forum for student speech. Having created the public forum, it must not discriminate among the speakers within the scope of the forum. The University must fund the rejected programs if similar, secular programs are funded. The Court also rejected Badger Catholic's cross-appeal: a) damages are not available against the University because it is not a "person" under § 1983, b) damages are not available against the individual defendants because of official immunity, c) damages are not available under state law because Badger Catholic failed to comply with statutory notice requirements, and d) the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a declaratory judgment instead of an injunction.

Judge Williams dissented. She phrased the issue as whether the University's rejection of Badger Catholic's programs was disallowing a particular view on a permissible topic (viewpoint discrimination -- unconstitutional) or disallowing any view on a particular topic (content discrimination -- constitutional). Her conclusion was that the University was engaged in the latter. The Constitution allows it to decide not to fund purely religious activity. It gets around any problem in defining the scope of that restriction by allowing the student organizations themselves to identify purely religious activities.

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

GROSS v. TOWN OF CICERO (August 27, 2010)

For several years after Clarence Gross retired as a Cicero police officer, he served in a number of appointed positions in the Town's government. The Town President appointed him Chairman of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. As Chairman, Gross oversaw the hiring of the Town's police officers. Gross admits that he hired several officers that he deemed unqualified because he was directed to do so by the Town President. Rhonda Gross, Clarence's daughter, also served as a Cicero police officer during this time. She complained to Gross that she and other female police officers were the victims of sexual harassment. Gross approached the Town President on several occasions to discuss the harassment. On each occasion, she deflected his attempt and promised to address it later. Rhonda filed an EEOC charge. The EEOC found substantial evidence that she was the subject of sexual harassment -- the Town settled. After Rhonda filed her charge, Gross was removed from his various appointments. He complained to the Town's attorney that he was owed compensation. When he became involved as a potential witness in litigation against the Town, he claims that the attorney told him he would not get his compensation until the other litigation was resolved. Gross brought suit pursuant to § 1983 against the Town, the President, a successor President, and the Town’s attorney. He alleged First Amendment free-speech violations. The Town brought counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Judge Darrah (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants on Gross' claim, granted summary judgment to Gross on the unjust enrichment claim, but granted summary judgment on liability to the Town on the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The court ultimately awarded over $300,000 on the claim after a bench trial, representing Gross' entire salary for the years in question.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Williams, and Tinder affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The Court first addressed Gross' First Amendment retaliation claims, specifically the first prong of the retaliation inquiry -- whether his speech was constitutionally protected. Three different episodes of retaliation were alleged: a) his sexual harassment complaints on behalf of Rhonda to the Town President, b) his instruction to Rhonda to file an EEOC charge, and c) his conversations with the plaintiffs’ lawyers in another case against the Town. The Court concluded that none of the episodes constituted protected speech: a) his complaints to the Town President about sexual harassment (to the extent there was even any actual content to the speech, as opposed to a mere request to discuss) were not matters of public concern but merely a private grievance, b) any encouragement to Rhonda to file the EEOC charge was not speech on a matter of public concern but, again, a mere private matter (the record also contains no evidence that any defendant was aware of this speech, precluding a finding of causation), and c) there is no evidence in the record to establish that a conversation with plaintiffs' lawyers in another case could constitute protected speech. The Court therefore affirmed the district court's finding in favor of the defendants on Gross’ First Amendment claim. The Court next addressed the Town’s breach of fiduciary duty claim. The district court noted that an Illinois statute sets standards by which municipalities’ Police Boards must evaluate appointed police officers. The court held that the statute created a fiduciary duty on the part of Police Board members to exercise independent judgment. The Court disagreed. The statute does not refer to fiduciary duties and the Court was reluctant to create one. Instead, the statute merely grants authority and establishes rules for the exercise of that authority. Although it concluded that the statute did not create a duty, the Court did recognize that Gross was subject to a duty of loyalty owed by all public officials. Relying on the standard the Illinois Supreme Court stated in upholding a criminal conviction, the Court ruled that there was sufficient evidence (barely) in the record for a factfinder to conclude that Gross violated that duty. A factfinder could conclude that Gross engaged in a quid pro quo arrangement with the Town President by which he protected his and his daughter’s jobs in return for appointing unqualified police officers selected by the President. The Court remanded for additional factual findings on that issue. Its conclusion on liability did not necessitate any analysis of the damage award. Nevertheless, the Court commented that the district court’s total salary forfeiture was not correct, unless Gross was breaching his duty during his entire tenure, a conclusion not supported by the current record.

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

BAUER v. SHEPARD (August 20, 2010)

Indiana Right to Life, Inc. sends questionnaires to judicial candidates for election or retention. The questionnaires seek information on the recipient's views on abortion. The organization filed suit challenging certain provisions of Indiana's Code of Judicial Conduct relating to the political activities of judges and candidates for judicial office. The suit was dismissed for lack of standing. In the present suit, the organization is joined by a sitting judge and a candidate for judicial office. The plaintiffs challenge five provisions of the code, four current and one which was in effect in 2008: a) the current and former rules forbidding "commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of judicial office," b) the rule requiring recusal of a judge if he or she made a public statement "that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result," c) the rule limiting the partisan political activities of judges, and d) limits on fundraising. Judge Springmann (N.D. Ind.) concluded that the challenge to the earlier version of the code was moot and concluded that the challenged sections of the current code were all constitutional. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Manion and Evans affirmed as modified. The Court first concluded that the individual plaintiffs had standing because of the threat to prosecute and the probability of future injury. Next, the Court addressed the challenge to the no-longer current section of the code. It disagreed with the lower court's finding of mootness. The code's amendment in 2009 did not eliminate the possibility of a prosecution for an earlier violation. Nevertheless, given the significant number of unlikely steps that must occur before such a prosecution, the Court concluded that the matter was not ripe for adjudication. The Court then addressed the merits of the challenge to the four current provisions in light of the Supreme Court's decision in White and the Court's own decision earlier this year in Siefert. The Court held: 1) The solicitation prohibition is fundamentally the same as the one the Court upheld in Siefert. It is not facially unconstitutional and the state should be given an opportunity to make exceptions as appropriate. 2) Although Siefert did not address political leadership roles and speechmaking, it did uphold a prohibition on public political endorsements. Its analysis led the Court to conclude that the preservation of public confidence in the judiciary is enough of a compelling interest to uphold the leadership and speechmaking prohibitions of the Indiana code. White dealt with limitations on the judge's own positions -- it did not affect precedent dealing with a judge's impact on the other elections. 3) With respect to the "commits" provision, the Court distinguished between the questionnaire, which asked for a candidate's views on certain topics and which the Supreme Court said was allowable, and the code provision, which only prohibits commitments "inconsistent with the impartial performance" of one's office. The Court did recognize some vagueness in the language. However, instead of identifying hypothetical situations in which the state may act too broadly, the Court chose to assume that the state would act reasonably and continue to refine the meaning of the provision through the administrative processes. 4) Finally, with respect to the recusal provision, the Court found no constitutional issue at all. The recusal clause does not address a judge's role as candidate -- it addresses a judge's role as public employee. Under Garcetti, a judge's speech in his role as a judge is not protected speech. Furthermore, a state has every right to allocate a court case to a judge whose impartiality is not open to debate.

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

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

MOSS v. MARTIN (August 2, 2010)

William Moss was hired as the Chief of the Illinois Department of Transportation's (IDOT) Springfield, Illinois Highway Sign Shop in 2000. He was responsible for taking care of the signs on Illinois' highways. Moss was also a Republican. In 2003, a Democratic governor was elected in Illinois for the first time in a long time. Shortly thereafter, IDOT personnel manager Jacob Miller, who knew that Moss was a Republican, discovered that he was non-exempt. Non-exempt employees are those that are not protected from employment decisions based on their political affiliation. Miller started the process for firing Moss. Before any action was taken, Scott Doubet replaced Miller. Independently of anything Miller had decided or started, Doubet fired Moss in order to provide a job to Joe Athey, who was loyal to the new governor. Moss brought suit under § 1983, alleging that his First Amendment and due process rights were violated. Judge Scott (C.D. Ill.) dismissed the claims. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reinstated the First Amendment claim. The district court then granted summary judgment to the defendants on qualified immunity grounds. Moss appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Wood, and Hamilton affirmed. The district court only addressed the second prong of the qualified immunity test, whether Moss’ constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the defendants' conduct. The Court nevertheless briefly visited the first prong of the test, whether Moss' First Amendment rights were even violated. The Court noted that a fact finder could find that the firing was politically motivated, particularly against some of the defendants. It also found that Moss had a "promising" argument that his classification as non-exempt was wrong. Non-exempt positions are reserved for individuals with policymaking responsibilities or those who handle confidential information. The Court did not believe that the Chief of the Highway Sign Shop met that definition. Thus, the Court moved to the issue addressed by the district court -- whether it was "clearly established" that defendants' actions would violate the First Amendment. Although not dispositive, the Court agreed with the district court that Illinois' designation of the position as non-exempt favored a qualified immunity finding. The Court also relied on the fact that the job was designated exempt before Moss took the position. Finally, the Court found it particularly telling that Moss was unable to point to a closely analogous case despite a large number of political patronage case. The Court therefore concluded that qualified immunity was appropriate.

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

BRANDT v. VILLAGE OF WINNETKA (July 20, 2010)

William Brandt, Jr. resides in Winnetka, Illinois and is active politically. He has hosted several receptions for candidates and officeholders at his home. In the aftermath of such an event in 1996 for President Clinton, Winnetka passed an ordinance that requires event sponsors to pay for the “special services” required by the events. Special services includes things like additional police presence and traffic control measures. Notwithstanding the ordinance, Winnetka has not asked Brandt to pay for any special services occasioned by the several events he has sponsored since its passage. The village has invoked the ordinance on three occasions -- one for President Bush and two for Laura Bush. Political committees, rather than the individual sponsor, paid for at least two of those events. Brandt filed suit pursuant to § 1983, seeking a declaratory judgment that the ordinance violates the First Amendment. He alleged that it "chilled" his willingness to sponsor events and that it engaged in viewpoint discrimination on the theory that more controversial candidates would require more special services. Judge Dow (N.D. Ill) dismissed the complaint on the grounds that Brandt lacked standing. Brandt appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Tinder affirmed as modified. The Court noted that the district court dismissed for lack of standing because Brandt had not established an injury -- but also mentioned its belief that the issue was not ripe and that it may be an improper case to exercise the court's discretion to issue a declaratory judgment. The Court concluded that the district court was in error when it found an absence of standing. Standing can be found when there is an actual or impending injury, even though that injury may be small and not absolutely certain. Here, the Court found sufficient injury (as well as causation and redressability) to support standing. The Court concurred with the district court, however, in its decision not to exercise its discretion to issue a declaratory judgment. Brandt does not challenge the ordinance on its face -- only as applied. The record does not show that the ordinance will be applied in a discriminatory fashion or that it has had any effect on speech. Such an abstract record does not lend itself to a constitutional adjudication at this time.

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

 RIVER OF LIFE KINGDOM MINISTRIES v. HAZEL CREST (July 2, 2010)

The Village of Hazel Crest refused to allow the River of Life Kingdom Ministries ("Ministries") to locate its church in a commercial area of the village. Ministries had a very small congregation and hoped to relocate its facilities from a dirty warehouse in Chicago Heights to Hazel Crest. The area in which it wanted to locate was designated a commercial district under the village's zoning ordinance. New noncommercial uses were excluded from the district under the ordinance. Judge Gottschall (N.D. Ill.) denied the Ministries' request for a preliminary injunction under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). On October 27, 2009, a panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed (the intheiropinion post). On petition by Ministries, the Court granted rehearing en banc.

In their opinion, the entire court affirmed, with Judges Manion, Cudahy, Rover, and Williams concurring and Judge Sykes dissenting. The "equal-terms" provision of RLUIPA prohibits a local government from instituting a land-use regulation that treats a religious institution "on less than equal terms with" a nonreligious institution. The Court addressed two different tests - one from the Third Circuit and one from the Eleventh. The Third Circuit approach is to identify a) the ordinance’s goals and b) the nonreligious assemblies comparable to the religious assembly at issue. The ordinance is consistent with the equal terms provision if the reasons for excluding a nonreligious assembly are applicable to the religious assembly. The Eleventh Circuit approaches the equal terms provision more literally. An ordinance that permits a nonreligious assembly must permit a religious assembly. The Eleventh Circuit test does include an exception -- unequal treatment could survive if it passed a "strict scrutiny" test. Although the panel had adopted the Third Circuit approach, the en banc court rejected both approaches. The Court believed the Eleventh Circuit’s approach was overprotective of religious groups (due, in large part, to the dictionary definition of "assembly") and that the "strict scrutiny" exception had no basis in the statute. With respect to the Third Circuit's test, its focus on the regulatory purpose of the zoning regulation was problematic to the Court. Instead, the Court adopted a variation of the Third Circuit test. It replaced the "subjective and manipulable" regulatory purpose test with an "objective" zoning criteria test. The zoning criteria used by Hazel Crest include setting aside land for commercial uses in order to generate tax revenue and to provide a convenient shopping area. When it created the district, it not only excluded churches but also excluded other nonreligious assemblies that did not offer opportunities for shopping or generate tax remedy. The Court concluded that Hazel Crest's adoption of an acceptable zoning criterion -- commercial district -- and its neutral application of the regulation demonstrated that Ministries was unlikely to prevail on the merits. It thus affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Judge Cudahy concurred. He wrote separately to express his view that there was little difference in the Third Circuit’s “regulatory purpose” test and the Court’s “zoning criterion” test.

Judge Manion concurred. He wrote separately to express his view that the case was rather straight forward and that the en banc court's opinion unnecessarily crafted a test to apply to more difficult cases. He also took issue with the opinion's discussion of a complicated Establishment Clause issue.

Judge Williams concurred (joined by Judges Cudahy and Rovner). Judge Williams expressed her belief that the Third Circuit's "regulatory purpose" test adopted by the panel is the proper test.

Judge Sykes dissented. She explored in detail the history of RLUIPA as well as the text of the statute, not limited to the "equal terms" provision. She also laid out the history of the "equal terms" jurisprudence in the Third, Eleventh, and Seventh Circuits. She noted that the Seventh Circuit had approved of the Eleventh Circuit approach until the panel opinion in this case. In her view, the plain language of RLUIPA prohibits any zoning regulation that treats a religious assembly on less than equal terms with a non-religious one. It contains no requirement of discriminatory motive or bias. Judge Sykes concluded that the Ministries demonstrated a likelihood of success -- the zoning regulation's allowance of gymnasiums, health clubs, and day care centers in the district where the church is not allowed is sufficient to show unequal terms.

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

SEIFERT v. ALEXANDER (June 14, 2010)

The State of Wisconsin has two sets (primary and general) of elections during its election years. Non-partisan officeholders, including judges and many county and municipal officers, are elected in the spring. Candidates for these positions are slated without party affiliation. In the fall, elections are held for partisan officeholders, including the sheriff and district attorney. In 2004, the Wisconsin Supreme Court amended the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct to prohibit a judge or judicial candidate from a) being a member of any political party, b) endorsing or speaking on behalf of another candidate, and c) personally soliciting campaign contributions. John Siefert has been a circuit court judge in Wisconsin since 1999. Siefert would like to join the Democratic Party, endorse partisan candidates for office, and solicit contributions for his upcoming campaign. He brought suit pursuant to § 1983 against the members of the Wisconsin Judicial Commission for injunctive and declaratory relief. Judge Crabb (W.D. Wis.) declared the rules unconstitutional and enjoined their enforcement. The Commission appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Rovner (dissenting in part), and Tinder affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court described its task as an attempt to "harmonize . . . two strains of First Amendment law." On the one hand, in White I, the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny in striking down a code of conduct that prohibited judges from taking positions on legal and political issues. On the other hand, the Supreme Court applied the less stringent Pickering standard in Letter Carriers and Garcetti and balanced the public employee's right to speak against the government's interests. The Court addressed each prohibition separately. With respect to the party membership prohibition, the Court found it content-based and applied strict scrutiny. Although a state does have a compelling interest in the lack of bias in its judiciary, the Court found that the prohibition was not narrowly tailored to serve that interest and struck it down. With respect to the partisan candidate endorsement prohibition, the Court noted a distinction between an endorsement of another and speech regarding a judge's own views. The distinction supported the application of a balancing approach instead of strict scrutiny. In balancing the state's interest in a fair judiciary with the judiciary's interest in endorsing candidates, the Court concluded that the state's interest prevailed. The Court did express its concern that the prohibition only applied to partisan elections. That under-inclusiveness could have invalidated the prohibition under a strict scrutiny approach – but the Court concluded that it did not under the balancing approach. Finally, with respect to the personal solicitation prohibition, the Court noted that Buckley created two approaches. Candidates' spending restrictions are met with strict scrutiny -- candidates' contributions restrictions are met with a less rigorous standard. The personal solicitation prohibition was a contribution restriction and therefore analyzed under the less rigorous approach. The Court found a strong state interest in protecting against the appearance of a quid pro quo that a direct personal solicitation might create. Even though the prohibition does not prevent a candidate from a reviewing a contributor list and applies even to family members, where the risk of a quid pro quo is remote, the Court found that the regulation was closely enough drawn to the state's interest to be constitutional.

Judge Rovner agreed with the panel in its treatment of the party membership restriction and the personal solicitation restriction. She dissented, however, from its treatment of the partisan candidate endorsement restriction. Her fundamental disagreement was with the majority's application of a balancing test. In her view, White I requires the application of a strict scrutiny standard in evaluating a content-based restriction. Under a strict scrutiny approach, the under-inclusiveness noted by the majority opinion is fatal to its constitutionality.

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

OGDEN V. ATTERHOLT (MAY 18, 2010)

In late 2006, Paul Ogden was hired as the manager of the Title Insurance Division of the Indiana Department of Insurance. He reported to Carol Mihalik, the head of the Consumer Protection Unit. Mihalik in turn reported to James Atterholt, the Commissioner. From early on, Ogden was critical of Mihalik. He even managed to avoid her and report directly to Atterholt on some of his projects. In September 2007, Ogden took two separate steps related to Mihalik. First, he filed a formal complaint with the State Personnel Division, complaining that Mihalik did not follow hiring regulations, misused funds, and fostered a hostile work environment. A few days later, he delivered a memorandum to Atterholt requesting that his division be removed from the Mihalik’s Unit. Almost all of the reasons in support of his request referred to Mihalik’s incompetence or dishonesty. Many of them repeated items from his formal complaint. He did not refer to his formal complaint, however, nor did the memorandum suggest the need for any discipline. A few hours after receiving the memorandum, Atterholt summoned Ogden to his office and gave him an opportunity to resign or be fired. Ogden resigned -- but then sued the Department, Atterholt, and Mihalik. He claimed a violation of his First Amendment rights under § 1983. Magistrate Judge Magnus-Stinson (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Ogden appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Williams, Sykes, and Tinder affirmed. The only First Amendment issue addressed by the Court was whether Ogden's speech was constitutionally protected. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti, the Court held that it was not. Garcetti tells us that public employees' speech is not constitutionally protected when the statements are made "pursuant to their official duties." Here, the Court concluded that the memorandum was simply a request for departmental reorganization – a request which fell squarely within the scope of his official duties. Although many of the reasons given alleged incompetence and dishonesty on the part of his superior, they were all made in support of this effort to convince Atterholt of the need to reorganize.

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

KODISH v. OAKBROOK TERRACE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (May 10, 2010)

Brian Kodish began work as a full-time firefighter and paramedic for Oakbrook Terrace in June of 2003. The Illinois Fire Protection Act prohibits the termination of a firefighter without just cause after the firefighter has "held that position for one year." In March of 2004, Kodish went on leave for a knee surgery. While he was out, he received a letter indicating that the District was going to extend his 12-month probationary period for 90 days. Although the evaluations he had received in his first nine months contained some positive remarks, Kodish was evaluated as "fair" in most categories. He was criticized for a lack of motivation, poor communication skills, and an inability to follow authority. Kodish returned from leave on July 24. On August 11, the District Board decided to terminate his employment. He filed suit against the District under § 1983, alleging a violation of his due process rights. He also alleged that he was fired in retaliation for speaking out on union issues. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Kodish appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Ripple and Rovner reversed. The Court first addressed the existence of a property right, a prerequisite for the federal due process claim. Of course, Kodish had passed his one-year anniversary before he was fired -- but, because of his four-month leave, he only actually worked a little over ten months. The Court looked to Illinois law to determine whether Kodish was protected. No Illinois court has interpreted the "held that position" language of the Act. The Court looked to Illinois decisions with respect to analogous statutes and concluded that the Illinois Supreme Court would read the plain language of the Act to impose a simple twelve-month employment requirement for the creation of the property interest. The Court rejected defendants' other arguments based on the Illinois Municipal Code and the District’s own Wage and Benefit Policy as either in applicable (in the case of the Code) or not controlling (in the case of the Policy) -- and reversed the district court's conclusion that Kodish had no property interest in continued employment. The Court then addressed Kodish's First Amendment claim. It quickly concluded that Kodish met two of the three requirements of the claim -- that the speech was protected speech and that he suffered a deprivation. In addressing the third requirement -- whether he would have been terminated but for his speech -- the Court reviewed his mixed employment evaluations as well as the evidence of the fire chief's opinion of Kodish's speech. The Court disagreed with the district court's conclusion that the only reasonable conclusion for his discharge was his employment record. Although the Court found that theory "plausible," it also found the alternate theory -- that he was fired for his speech -- one that a reasonable jury could adopt. In concluding that the First Amendment claim should have survived summary judgment, the Court also concluded that Kodish presented sufficient evidence that the fire chief's animus should be attributed to the District under either the "singular influence" or the "motivating factor" test.

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

SWEARNIGEN-EL v. COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT (April 22, 2010)

Swearnigen-El was a black male guard in the women's division at the Cook County Jail. He had a run-in with the head of the division, who wanted the correctional staff in the women's division to be comprised totally of women. Swearnigen-El thought that belief was discriminatory and he reported his concerns to other supervisors. Shortly thereafter, Swearnigen-El found himself in trouble when a female prisoner's allegations that male guards were engaged in sexual activity with female prisoners launched an investigation. The Sheriff's Police conducted the initial investigation, followed by an investigation by the State's Attorney’s office. Several prisoners reported that Swearnigen-El was having sex with a female prisoner. The prisoner herself admitted the activity. Swearnigen-El was de-deputized and transferred for violating a General Order that forbids "activities unbecoming" an employee. He was later charged with sexual misconduct and suspended with pay. Before he had a termination hearing with the merit board, Swearnigen-El resigned. After he was acquitted of the criminal charges, he filed a complaint alleging gender discrimination, race discrimination, Title VII retaliation, First Amendment retaliation, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed the Title VII retaliation claim and granted summary judgment to the defendants on all other claims. Swearnigen-El appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Wood, Evans, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first upheld summary judgment on all gender and race discrimination claims because there was no adverse employment action. Swearnigen-El was de-deputized and transferred after a internal investigation demonstrated evidence of misconduct. His pay was not affected and there was no evidence that the conditions were intolerable. The Court concluded that no reasonable jury could find a constructive discharge under those circumstances. Alternatively, the Court found that Swearnigen-El a) failed to establish sufficient evidence of race or gender discrimination to create a triable issue, and b) was not meeting his legitimate job expectations. Next, the Court considered the First Amendment retaliation claim. The principal speech at issue was Swearnigen-El's disagreement with his superior regarding the staffing of the women's division and his subsequent complaints to other officials that her actions constituted discrimination. The Court concluded that the speech was not protected -- Swearnigen-El was speaking not "as a citizen" but as a public employee under Garcetti. Again, the Court came to the alternative conclusion that no reasonable juror could find the defendants' actions pretextual. On the claim of malicious prosecution, the Court found sufficient evidence of misconduct after the investigation to establish probable cause. Since the absence of probable cause is an element of a malicious prosecution claim, Swearnigen-El's claim must fail. Finally, the Court agreed that there was no "outrageous" conduct that would amount to an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim and upheld the district court's dismissal of the Title VII retaliation claim on the ground that Swearnigen-El failed to include it in his EEOC charge.

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

BIVENS v. TRENT (January 6, 2010)
 

In his position as an officer in the Illinois State Police, Jimmy Bivens was responsible for the operations of an indoor firing range. He performed his job well. He greatly improved the conditions at the range and was commended for his work. After a few months of working at the range, however, Bivens began to feel quite ill. He was concerned that his symptoms were related to lead exposure at the range. Blood tests revealed highly elevated levels of lead. Bivens filed a union grievance, alleging unsafe working conditions. Within days, the range was tested and closed for remediation. Bivens' blood lead levels returned to normal within a few weeks and he returned to work. He only worked for one week, however, claiming that he continued to experience health problems. The State Police arranged for independent examinations by a neurologist and psychiatrist. Both found Bivens' health to be normal and approved his return to work. The State Police terminated Bivens' disability benefits. Bivens brought suit pursuant to §1983, alleging that his superiors violated the First Amendment by retaliating against him for filing the union grievance. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that his speech was not protected because it was part of his official duties. Bivens appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Manion and Evans affirmed. One of the several elements of Bivens' §1983 claim is that he engaged in speech protected by the Constitution. The Court agreed with the district court that Bivens had an obligation, as part of his job, to report his concerns about lead contamination. It also agreed that any such reports to his superiors would not be protected under the Supreme Court's Garcetti decision. Here, however, the speech was not through Bivens' chain of command but as a union grievance. The Court was unwilling to conclude, because of the availability of an alternative holding, that the union grievance could not be protected speech. To be protected, the speech must also address a matter of public concern. The Court looked to the content, the context and the form to determine whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern. The court concluded that the context -- Bivens' own illness -- and the form -- an internal union grievance -- were more consistent with the vindication of a private, rather than a public, interest. Although the content referenced a subject of potential public interest, the Court concluded that Bivens was not attempting, by his speech, to bring this safety issue into the open. Being purely private, the speech was not protected and retaliation claim fails. 

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

MILWAUKEE DEPUTY SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION v. CLARKE (December 4, 2009)

The Milwaukee County Sheriff, David Clarke, invited a religious group, the Fellowship of the Christian Centurions, to attend and speak at a department leadership conference. All deputies above the rank of sergeant were required to attend. At the conference, Clarke announced some upcoming promotions, distributed written material with quotations from the Bible, and described "people of faith" as one of the qualities he was looking for in a leader. One of the Centurions then spoke and distributed additional material. After the conference, representatives of the Centurions also made presentations and distributed flyers at a number of mandatory roll calls. Two deputies, and their union, brought suit under § 1983. They alleged a violation of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the Establishment Clause claim. The defendants appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Cudahy and Williams affirmed. Under the Establishment Clause, government action may not: a) have a non-secular purpose, b) have the principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, or c) foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. Although the first prong requires an analysis of the government's actual purpose, the second does not. A violation can be established if a reasonable person would conclude that the government action amounted to an endorsement of religion. Here, very few outside organizations have the kind of access given to the Centurions -- and those that were were organizations that partnered with the department in some fashion. The Court concluded that a reasonable observer would interpret the Sheriff's actions as an endorsement, although it was careful to limit its conclusion to the facts presented. In its analysis, the Court also rejected the Sheriff's argument that the First Amendment compelled him to grant access to the Centurions. The Court reasoned that the Sheriff did not create a forum of any kind by having a department meeting or a roll call. The Centurions were not looking for a place to speak -- they were looking for a specific audience to speak to. The Sheriff was not required to give that access.

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

BOND v. UTRERAS (November 10, 2009)

Diane Bond filed a § 1983 action against the City of Chicago and several police officers in 2004. The parties settled. The court entered an agreed order of dismissal on March 23, 2007. About a week earlier, however, journalist Jamie Kalven filed a petition to intervene. Kalven sought to modify a protective order in the case and to obtain access to documents produced during discovery. The City opposed access -- Bond did not substantively respond to the petition. The court granted the motion to intervene and rescinded the protective order. The City appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Sykes and Tinder (concurring) vacated and remanded. Although the Court recognized its earlier decisions allowing permissive intervention to challenge a protective order, it emphasized that those cases involved ongoing litigation or access to records in the court file. Here, neither of those conditions is present. The case was over and none of the records sought were ever filed with the court. Therefore, stated the Court, the lower court should have addressed Kalven’s standing. Standing requires that an actual controversy exist at all stages of the proceeding. The Court noted that the circuit had never addressed the relationship between Article III standing and the rule for permissive intervention. This is not a typical permissive intervention case -- where the party seeks to come into an ongoing case on the side of one of the parties. Specifically not addressing whether standing is required for permissive intervention in an ongoing case, the Court concluded that independent standing was required to intervene in a case to challenge a protective order after the case was dismissed. The Court then rejected Kalven's standing on both right to discovery and First Amendment grounds. The Court based the former on the fact that none of the discovery sought had been filed with the court. The general right of public access to court documents is not implicated. The latter was based on the fact that the parties in the litigation stipulated to the protective order. No one placed any limitation on another's speech. Finally, the Court rejected any notion that the revocation of the protective order was within the lower court's inherent power.

Judge Tinder concurred in the result. He got there differently, however. Judge Tinder believed that Kalven had standing based on the public's general right of access to judicial proceedings. He concluded, however, given the timing of the request and the lack of a sufficient showing of abuse with respect to the protective order, that the district court erred on the merits.

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

RIVER OF LIFE KINGDOM MINISTRIES v. HAZEL CREST (October 27, 2009)

River of Life Kingdom Ministries ("Ministries") is a small religious organization that does not occupy its own facility. Instead, it shares space with two other religious organizations in a dirty warehouse. The Ministries decided to purchase a new facility where it could better promote its community goals. It purchased property in Hazel Crest, even though the village had zoned the area for economic redevelopment. The ordinances allowed general commercial and retail uses but did not allow religious services. After its application for a special-use exception was denied, the Ministries filed a complaint and motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The complaint alleged that the ordinance violated the Equal Terms provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). While the motion for a preliminary injunction was pending, the village amended the ordinance to exclude meeting halls, public schools, community centers and other uses in an effort to ensure the ordinance's compliance with RLUIPA. The court denied the preliminary injunction. The Ministries appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Manion and Williams affirmed. The Court first stated the burden for obtaining a preliminary injunction: a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm and a balancing of the harms based on the likelihood of success. With respect to its likelihood of success on the merits, the Court concluded that the Ministries was unlikely to succeed. The Equal Terms provision of the Act prohibits land-use regulations that treat religious assemblies on "less than equal terms" with non-religious assemblies. The Court discussed and critiqued the approaches of the Eleventh and Third Circuits. The Court preferred the Third Circuit approach, which allows a court to compare the effects of the allowed and disallowed uses on the local government's goals. Here, Hazel Crest's goal was to create a tax-generating commercial district. All of the "assemblies" that were allowed by the ordinance were commercial ventures. The Court concluded that the village's exclusion of non-commercial uses, including religious assemblies, was not likely to violate the RLUIPA. Although the Court then concluded that the relocation was instrumental to the Ministries' mission and could be considered irreparable harm, it did not believe that that harm significantly outweighed the harm to Hazel Crest.

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

ILLINOIS DUNESLAND PRESERVATION SOCIETY v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (October 14, 2009)

Illinois Beach State Park is located in northeastern Illinois on the shores of Lake Michigan. Various buildings in the park have display racks containing pamphlets on various topics. The Illinois Dunesland Preservation Society is a nonprofit corporation that supports the park. The Society created a pamphlet warning of the risk of asbestos at the park's beaches. When the park refused to display the pamphlet, the Society brought suit under § 1983 against the state officials involved in operating the park. The district court granted summary judgment to the officials. The Society appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Wood affirmed. The Court first recited some of the "forum analysis" of Supreme Court decisions but then questioned the value of that analysis to the question. Every public site, stated the Court, can be regulated to some extent depending on the circumstances and as long as the regulation is not used to stifle speech. Here, the materials displayed in the park's racks are meant to promote the park and state tourist facilities generally. The dire warning contained in the Society's pamphlet is hardly consistent with that purpose. The Court concluded that the park was not required to display, and thus tacitly endorse, the pamphlet containing the warnings. The Court added that there were other means, such as personal distribution, available to the Society to convey its message. The park's position was not an unreasonable barrier to speech.

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

GUNVILLE v. WALKER (October 9, 2009)

Robert Gunville and Richard Oakley had both worked for the Illinois Department of Corrections for over twenty years, all during Republican administrations, when a Democratic governor was elected in 2003. Both were laid off within months of the new administration’s inauguration. Gunville was an active member of the Republican Party while Oakley had a record of voting in Republican primaries. Gunville and Oakley brought suit, alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights. They also allege a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights as a result of their placement on a reemployment list for only their last county of employment. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Gunville and Oakley appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner and Sykes affirmed. In first addressing their First Amendment claim, the Court noted that there was no dispute that their speech was constitutionally protected and that they suffered a deprivation. The issue on appeal was whether the layoff came as a result of their political affiliation. In order to establish the unlawful motivation, the plaintiffs must first establish that the defendants knew of their political affiliation. After concurring with the district court's hearsay ruling on one particular statement, the Court concluded that there was a complete absence of evidence that the persons deciding which jobs to eliminate knew of plaintiffs' political affiliations. The Court came to the same conclusion with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment claims. The due process clause does not provide an opportunity to challenge the meaning of a regulation, the relief plaintiffs sought. To the extent that plaintiffs assert political retaliation, the due process argument suffers from the same complete absence of evidence as the First Amendment claim.

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

NEW ALBANY DVD v. CITY OF NEW ALBANY (September 10, 2009)

New Albany DVD set out to operate an adult entertainment business in New Albany, Indiana. It purchased property, obtained licenses and renovated a building. Although the land was properly zoned, the City refused to conduct a final inspection, a requirement for occupancy. Instead, it imposed a moratorium on new adult businesses. During the moratorium, it changed the zoning rules to prohibit the operation of an adult business on the property selected by New Albany DVD. The new rules prohibit the operation of an adult business within 1000 feet of a church or any property zoned residential. The site is within 200 feet of both. New Albany DVD brought suit under § 1983, alleging a violation of the First Amendment. The district court held that the ordinance was likely unconstitutional and issued an injunction allowing New Albany DVD to open. The City appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Ripple and Rovner remanded. The Court first disagreed with the lower court's rationale -- that the regulation was not narrowly tailored for its purpose -- for issuing the injunction. Although Alameda Books and other cases require narrow tailoring of regulations of adult businesses, the Court concluded that the dispersal regulation at issue had often been used and sustained after challenge. The Court went on, however, to agree with the court’s result under a different rationale. It noted that the studies relied on by the City focused on live-entertainment businesses. New Albany DVD offers take-home materials only. The City’s attempts to overcome this hurdle by offering anecdotal evidence of increased litter and theft was rejected as well. The Court agreed that the City might be able to use those justifications, but concluded that sufficient evidence did not exist in the record. Finally, the Court referred, as it did in its earlier Annex Books opinion (see post), to Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Alameda Books as a guide to the evidence required under the intermediate scrutiny standard.

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

DARCHAK v. CITY OF CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION (September 3, 2009)

Anna Darchak, a native of Poland, worked for several years in the Chicago public school system as a teacher of English as a Second Language. In 2005, she was hired as a full-time teacher at the Princeton Alternative Center on a one-year contract. It was not a good year. Almost immediately, Darchak complained that Hispanic students were being treated more favorably than Polish students. Darchak alleges that Princeton's principal made several disparaging remarks in reference to Darchak's heritage. Later in the year, the principal assigned Darchak to a classroom with a large number of Spanish speaking students. Darchak complained – and she received a negative evaluation. The principal chose not to renew Darchak's contract at the end of the year. Darchak filed suit, alleging retaliatory discharge, First Amendment retaliation under § 1983, and national origin discrimination under Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Darchak appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Ripple and Wood affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court addressed each claim in turn. First, with respect to the state law claim of retaliatory discharge, the Court stated that Darchak had to demonstrate that she was discharged, that the discharge was retaliatory, and that the discharge violated a clear mandate of public policy. The Court concluded that the claim failed on both the first and third elements. First, Darchak was not discharged -- her one-year contract was not renewed. Second, the public policy relied on by Darchak -- equal education -- has never been recognized by Illinois courts as support for a retaliatory discharge claim. With respect to her First Amendment retaliation claim, the Court concluded that the Board of Education was not liable under Monell. Although Darchak alleged that the principal was a final policymaker, the Court stated that Illinois law makes the Board the final policymaker. The Court agreed that the Board's adoption of the principal's recommendation could be a basis for liability but only if they adopted the retaliatory basis as well. The Court found no evidence of that. Finally, with respect to the Title VII national origin discrimination claim, the Court noted that she put forth both a direct and an indirect case. The Court rejected her indirect method approach because she could not demonstrate pretext with respect to the Board's reasons for nonrenewal. On her direct method, however, the court found that Darchak presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to reach a jury. The evidence of derogatory remarks followed shortly by a disciplinary notice from the principal follow later by the nonrenewal establish a prima facie case. The fact that Darchak's testimony is uncorroborated and self-serving does not change that result, as the district court believed. The testimony is based on her first-hand experience and deserves to be considered. The Court concluded that the evidence raised a question of intent that had to go to the jury.

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

ANNEX BOOKS, INC. v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS (September 3, 2009)

The City of Indianapolis regulates “adult entertainment businesses”. The regulations include a license requirement, store lighting requirements, Sunday closings and restricted weekday hours. Prior to 2003, any retail establishment that received 50% of its revenue or devoted 50% of its space to adult materials was considered such a business. In 2003, Indianapolis reduced the 50% threshold to 25%. Four businesses that fell within that new definition brought suit, challenging both the licensing procedures and the definition. The district court rejected the challenges to both. The businesses appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum and Rovner affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court adopted the district court's opinion with respect to the licensing challenge. It went on to address the challenge to the definition. The Court noted that Indianapolis conceded that the law is subject to "intermediate" scrutiny in that the plaintiffs are booksellers. Indianapolis relies on the reduction of crime and other negative effects of adult businesses. The Court identified a problem, however. Indianapolis relied on studies accepted by the Supreme Court and on a study it conducted years earlier that associated higher crime with adult businesses. But the studies all dealt with the effect of regulations dispersing adult businesses. The Indianapolis ordinance does not deal with dispersal -- it deals with store hours and store conditions. The studies also dealt with businesses that offered live entertainment, unlike three of the four plaintiffs in the case. The Court concluded that an evidentiary hearing was required. At the hearing, the City must present relevant evidence supporting its restrictions on adult businesses that satisfies the intermediate standard of the Supreme Court's decision in Alameda Books. The Court referred to Justice Kennedy's opinion, reflecting the holding of Alameda Books, as instructive. In order to meet the constitutional challenge, said Justice Kennedy, an ordinance must suppress the secondary effects of the regulated business yet leave the availability and amount of speech "substantially intact."

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

WATERS v. CITY OF CHICAGO (September 2, 2009)

Daniel Waters was a painter in the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT). In 2000, he refused a request by his supervisor to participate in a political campaign. At about the same time, he twice contacted local investigative journalists. On one occasion, he complained about a bridge that he thought was in such a state of disrepair that it was a danger to the public. On the other occasion, he complained that the City was making some improvements to a piece of property and that it did not own. Several of his superiors were unhappy with his conduct. He was transferred into a job working for a supervisor for whom he had worked before several times. Their relationship was strained, at best. Within a matter of weeks, Waters had several run-ins with his supervisor and was reported multiple times for violent behavior. A deputy commissioner recommended his firing. The department did not act on the recommendation. Department policy required that Waters be given an opportunity to respond to the charges of violence before any discipline was handed out. Waters provided his side of the story -- but the department ruled that his conduct amounted to violence in the workplace. The deputy commissioner resubmitted his recommendation. A pre-termination hearing was held. Commissioner Rice, who held the only authority to fire, terminated Waters. Waters sued the City under § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation. A jury awarded Waters $225,000 in damages and the court awarded more than $1 million in back pay, front pay and pension benefits. The City appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner and Tinder vacated, reversed and remanded. The Court stated that, under Monell, a city can be liable for a constitutional deprivation but only if it resulted from a policy or practice, or that the injury was caused by someone with final policymaking authority. Waters relied on the latter prong. Final policymaking authority comes from state and local law, though. Here, said the Court, local law gives policymaking authority to the City Council, which has delegated it to the Commissioner of Human Resources. Although the Court recognized that department commissioners do have some authority to execute existing policy, they do not have policymaking authority. Since Commissioner Rice had no such authority, municipal liability cannot be based on her actions. The Court went on to note that Waters presented no evidence that Rice’s termination was in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights. Even if she had policymaking authority, the absence of that evidence would have defeated his claim.  

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

FAIRLEY v. ANDREWS (August 20, 2009

Fairley and Gackowski were employed as guards at the Cook County Jail. Both complained about their fellow guards' mistreatment of prisoners. After one particularly brutal incident, the affected prisoners filed suit. Fairley and Gackowski infuriated some of the other guards by their willingness to testify truthfully about their knowledge of the incident. They were both harassed and taunted, verbally and physically. Ultimately, they both quit. Fairley testified in a deposition a few weeks before he quit. Gackowski gave a deposition after he quit. Both testified at the trial, which resulted in a defense verdict. Fairley and Gackowski brought an action under § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated their free speech rights by assaulting them as a result of their willingness to report the abuse of prisoners and to testify truthfully. Shortly before trial, the district court ordered the exclusion of all evidence of events that occurred prior to the plaintiffs’ depositions. The judge reasoned that anything that occurred prior to their speech could not be considered as retaliation or punishment for that speech. Without that evidence, the guards accepted a dismissal. Fairley and Gackowski appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Wood affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court first clarified its jurisdiction, given the guards' acceptance of a dismissal after the court’s evidentiary ruling. The Court concluded that a party can decide that further pursuit of its case in the trial court is hopeless and accept a judgment against it in order to appeal. On the merits, the Court addressed both of plaintiffs' theories: that the defendants punished them for reporting defendants’ misconduct and that defendants taunted them to prevent their future testimony. On the first theory, the Court concluded that their claim was barred by Garcetti. Garcetti provides that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is part of one's job. Here, one guard’s report about another guard's conduct is part of the job. But Garcetti applies as against an employer - here, the defendants are coworkers. The Court concluded that it did not have to reach the coworker issue. The guards' Monell argument that the jail had a policy against reporting any guard misconduct linked the employer's liability and the coworker's liability. On the second theory of liability, however, the Court concluded that Garcetti did not control. The speech at issue in the second theory was the guards' testimony in the prisoners' trial. That speech is not part of the job. The Court concluded that Fairley and Gackowski could recover against a defendant who made threats that were designed to discourage their trial testimony.

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

HOLLINS v. MILWAUKEE (July 31, 2009)

David Hollins is a freelance photographer. One June day in 2002, he was walking down a Milwaukee street. He came upon a scene where the Milwaukee Police were conducting a search of a home across the street. Hollins began taking pictures. A police officer noticed Hollins and asked him to move away from the area. Although he moved a short distance, Hollins eventually stopped and refused to move further. Police officers arrested Hollins and cited him for resisting an officer. The parties' versions of the events differ greatly with respect to the amount of force used by the officers and the attitude and language of the participants. Hollins was convicted and paid a fine. He later sued the city and the officers for violations of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. He also brought a § 1983 claim against the City of Milwaukee for failure to train police officers properly. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the § 1983 claim and dismissed the free speech and due process claims as well. A jury found for the defendants on the unlawful arrest and excessive force claims. Hollins appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Evans affirmed. The Court first addressed the § 1983 claim for failure to properly train the police. The Court agreed that a failure to train police can lead to § 1983 liability if it amounts to a deliberate indifference of public rights. The Court further stated that Hollins had to present allegations of a specific pattern of incidents to prove that the constitutional deprivation resulted from an official policy or custom. Hollins, however, failed to offer any evidence that the city's failure to train amounted to the requisite deliberate indifference. The city, on the other hand, presented unrebutted evidence that it did offer significant training in the areas cited by Hollins. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the free-speech claims, concluding that Hollins' allegations that he was arrested for taking pictures totally unsupported. With respect to the alleged trial errors, the Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it: a) refused to ask a voir dire question on racial prejudice that had nothing to do with the law or facts, b) disallowed questioning on cross-examination that one of the defendants had been investigated for falsifying police reports when it had limited probative value, and c) refused to tender Hollins' jury instruction interpreting the ordinance under which he was cited when he offered no authority to support his interpretation and when the jury was not being asked to determine whether the ordinance had been violated.

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

VALENTINO v. SOUTH CHICAGO HEIGHTS (July 30, 2009)

Sandra Valentino worked for the Village of South Chicago Heights for several years. In 2001, she became suspicious of Mayor David Owen's hiring practices. She was aware that the Village employed many of the mayor's friends and family members. She believed that many of these employees were on a “ghost payroll,” i.e., being paid for work they did not perform. She shared her concerns with William Bramanti, a former village employee who quit as a result of a dispute with the mayor. Bramanti submitted a FOIA request to the village for employee time records. At the same time, Valentino began to make copies of the daily employee sign-in sheets. In February of 2003, Bramanti accused the mayor publicly of ghost payrolling. The very next business day, the Village Administrator searched Valentino's desk, found the copies, and fired Valentino when she arrived for work. Valentino filed a § 1983 action against the Village, the mayor and others. She alleged retaliation in violation of her First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Valentino appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Evans and Williams reversed and remanded. The Court first looked to whether Valentino's speech was constitutionally protected, i.e., whether she spoke as a private citizen on a matter of concern. The Court found it "well-established" that speech which protests government waste is entitled to constitutional protection. Although the Court recognized that Valentino had a private interest in determining whether she was receiving proper compensation, it concluded that her speech was protected since she was not motivated solely by those personal interests. The Court next addressed whether there was evidence that the protected speech was a motivating factor in her termination. The Court found the circumstantial evidence -- knowledge of her relationship with Bramanti, the search of her desk, the search and firing the day after Bramanti's public accusations, and a comment by the mayor threatening her employment -- sufficient to take that issue to a jury. That same evidence, as well as the fact that the sign-in sheets were on public display and were simply copied by Valentino, was enough for the Court to conclude that a jury could also find the village's stated reason for her termination pretextual. Thus, the Court reversed the summary judgment for the defendants. With respect to the Monell claim, the Court stated that the Village could be liable for the constitutional violation if it was caused by an individual with final policymaking authority. The question for the Court was whether Owens had final authority on matters of hiring and firing. The Court concluded that the evidence was conclusive that Mayor Owen made personnel decisions for the village without any meaningful oversight, and thus had final authority. The Court reversed the district court with respect to the village's liability under Monell. Finally, the Court rejected defendants' argument that the Illinois Tort Immunity Act immunized them. That Act immunizes village officials from certain discretionary policy decisions. The decision to fired Valentino was not a policy decision -- the defendants are not entitled to immunity.

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

MILWAUKEE DEPUTY SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION v. CLARKE, JR. (July 21, 2009)

In mid-2005, possibly in response to public criticism of his use of police officers as escorts, Milwaukee County Sheriff Clarke posted a message on the department bulletin board: "If you are afraid or have lost your courage, you may go home, otherwise you will ruin the morale of others." Michael Schuh, a veteran police officer, was offended. He submitted a statement to the union newsletter: "If you are afraid or you have lost your courage and need two deputies and a sergeant to escort you every time you fly in and out of the airport and patrol deputies to drive by your house when you're out of town you should resign and go home! Then you would lift the morale of this whole department (a.k.a. office)." A few days later, Sheriff Clarke assigned Schuh to a newly-created patrol in the most dangerous part of the town -- in full uniform, without a partner, and without a car. At about the same time, Sheriff Clarke issued a revised departmental confidentiality policy. The policy required employees to keep "official agency business" confidential and not to speak on behalf of the department. Officer Schuh and the union brought suit, alleging violations of state law as well as First Amendment retaliation under § 1983. The suit also challenged the confidentiality policy as an unlawful prior restraint. The district court granted summary judgment to Sheriff Clarke on the federal claims. Schuh and the union appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rovner and Evans affirmed. The Court applied the three-step First Amendment retaliation analysis. The only step in dispute was whether Schuh's speech was constitutionally protected. To be protected, the speech must be of public concern. The Court considered the content, form and context of Schuh's statement. The Court noted that the form, a union newsletter, and the content, the Sheriff's abuse of department resources, could weigh in favor of constitutional protection. The context of the statement, however, led the Court in a different direction. The Court concluded that the context of the speech showed that it was a purely private matter. It did not focus on the fiscal repercussions of the Sheriff's conduct but rather on the personal impact of his original statement. Since the speech is not protected, Schuh's retaliation claim fails. With respect to the prior restraint claim, the Court first looked to whether the confidentiality policy applied to protected speech – i.e., the speech of a citizen on a matter of public concern. Since the policy on its face applied only to "official agency business," the Court concluded that it must apply only to speech related to an employee's professional duties. Since it did not regulate protected speech, it was not an unlawful prior restraint.

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

MATRISCIANO v. RANDLE (June 26, 2009)

Ron Matrisciano worked for the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) for over 20 years. By 2002, he had risen to the level of Assistant Deputy Director. Over the course of his employment with IDOC, he had become acquainted with a particularly notorious inmate, Harry Aleman. Aleman was serving a 100-300 year sentence for murder. Ten years into his sentence, when Aleman was about to be afforded a parole board hearing, his family asked Matrisciano if he would speak at the hearing. Matrisciano advised his superiors that he planned to testify at a parole board hearing, although he apparently did not advise them that Aleman was the subject of the hearing. Matrisciano took a personal day on the day of the hearing and testified in favor of Aleman's release. The fact that a relatively senior official of IDOC testified in favor of the release of a particularly notorious inmate generated significant media inquiry. IDOC officials reassigned Matrisciano to a new position within the department. Matrisciano filed suit, alleging that the transfer violated his First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment against Matrisciano. Matrisciano appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Williams and Sykes affirmed. The Court addressed the issue in the context of qualified immunity. The defendant government officials are entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct did not violate "clearly established" constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would be aware. The Court noted the Supreme Court's recent retreat from the mandatory two-step sequence of Saucier and used its discretion to address the "clearly established" prong first. The elements of a case of First Amendment retaliation are constitutionally protected speech, a deprivation likely to deter speech, and speech being a motivating factor for the adverse action. The defendants did not contest the second element and the Court easily found sufficient evidence of the third element on which a jury could rely. Therefore, the Court addressed whether the speech was constitutionally protected. First, the Court found or assumed that Matrisciano was speaking as a "citizen" and was speaking on a matter of public concern. The Court next rejected the "policy-maker" exception, under which a policy-making employee may be discharged for engaging in speech that is critical of his superiors or their policies. Although the Court found that Matrisciano was a policy-making employee, it found that his speech was too remote from the policies of the department to trigger the exception. Finally, the court moved to the Pickering balancing of the speech interests of the employee and the public service interests of the employer. Under that balancing, the Court considered several factors: whether the speech would create discipline problems, whether the employee’s position is one in which loyalty and competence are necessary, whether the speech affected the employee’s ability to perform, the time and place and manner and context of the speech, whether the subject of the speech was vital, and whether the speaker would be considered a member of the general public. In engaging in that balancing, the Court identified a number of factors on each side of the analysis: on the one hand, there was no policy prohibiting the testimony, Matrisciano advised and got permission for the testimony, IDOC employees frequently have relevant information helpful for parole determinations – on the other hand, Matrisciano had only minimal contact with the prisoner, Matrisciano was a high ranking employee, Matrisciano spoke voluntarily, and Matrisciano testified beyond his personal observations and actually requested the prisoner's release. Having found considerations on both sides of the equation, the Court was not inclined to decide whether Matrisciano's First Amendment rights were violated. Having decided that, it was not difficult to conclude that the law was such that reasonable officials would not know that their transfer of Matrisciano was unlawful. The defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. 

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

HALLINAN v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE OF CHICAGO LODGE NO. 7 (June 25, 2009)

Shawn Hallinan and Wayne Harej were Chicago police officers and members of the police union, the Fraternal Order of Police of Chicago Lodge No. 7 (the Union). They led an effort to unseat the Union’s president and his organization in early 2005. During the course of the campaign, they discovered that the president had underreported his income. They reported the matter to the Attorney General and discussed it publicly. The president was, nevertheless, reelected. The Union soon suspended, and then expelled, the two men from the Union. At the Union's request, the City of Chicago converted the two men into "fair-share payers." Fair-share payers are those members of the Police Department who are not Union members and do not pay Union membership dues but who contribute a "fair-share" for the Union's continued representation of them in matters concerning their wages, hours and working conditions. Hallinan and Harej brought an action against the Union under section 1983 alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court dismissed the action for plaintiffs’ failure to plead state action. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Wood and Sykes affirmed. The allegations of constitutional violations in the complaint, noted the Court, are actionable only against conduct of the government -- not against private conduct. Unions, of course, are not government actors. A deprivation of a constitutional right may be actionable against a private actor in certain limited circumstances. The Court noted several examples: when the state compels the action, when the private actor is only nominally private, when the state delegates its function to a private actor, etc. Here, the state action alleged is that the Union is the sole collective bargaining unit for the Chicago Police. However, the acts complained of were not taken in concert or in agreement with the City. They were exclusively internal actions. The Court concluded that there was not enough evidence of entanglement by the City to give rise to state action. Although the Court agreed with the district court that the claim should be dismissed for failure to allege state action, it corrected the district court’s categorization of it as a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An absence of a proper allegation of state action is simply a failure to plead an essential element of the claim.

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

BODENSTAB v. COUNTY OF COOK (June 22, 2009)

Dr. Philip Bodenstab was an anesthesiologist at Cook County Hospital from 1993 until 2002. In February of 2002, Bodenstab, recently diagnosed with cancer, had a telephone conversation with a friend during which he threatened to kill his supervisor and co-workers. The friend contacted theFBI and Chicago police. The FBI and police contacted the director of the hospital and told him that the threats were credible. The hospital suspended Bodenstab with pay. Over the next several months, Bodenstab went through a series of assessments, evaluations and treatments. After his discharge from treatment and evaluation by the hospital's own psychiatrist, the hospital conducted a pre-disciplinary hearing on the major infraction of threatening to kill coworkers. The hearing officer concluded that the infraction warranted discharge. The hospital fired him. Bodenstab brought an action against Cook County and several individuals seeking to overturn the administrative decision and bringing affirmative allegations that his discharge violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the First Amendment and due process. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Bodenstab appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Flaum and Manion affirmed. The Court rejected each of Bodenstab's arguments in turn. The ADA disparate treatment claim failed because Bodenstab presented no evidence challenging the sincerity of the hospital's belief that he threatened to harm his co-workers. Even if they were mistaken, the Court held that Bodenstab could not show pretext if they reasonably believed the threats. The ADA failure to accommodate claim failed because there is no obligation to accommodate conduct -- and conduct was the reason Bodenstab was fired. The First Amendment claim failed for the same reason the ADA disparate treatment claim failed. Bodenstab was fired because he threatened to kill coworkers -- not because of his speech -- and Bodenstab introduced no evidence otherwise. The Court next rejected Bodenstab's common-law certiorari claim to review the administrative decision on the merits. That claim presents the question of whether the record contains any evidence which fairly tends to support the findings -- it does. Finally, the Court concluded that Bodenstab was afforded adequate notice and a pre-termination hearing that complied with the mandates of due process.

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

UNITED STATES v. BENSON (April 6, 2009)

William Benson claims to believe that the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution was never properly ratified and that, as a result, the federal income tax system is unconstitutional. Benson has written a book on the subject and promotes and sells a package of materials that he claims will allow citizens to refuse to file federal income tax returns and still avoid liability as a result. The United States brought an action against Benson in federal court pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6700. The United States sought an injunction preventing Benson from promoting and selling his tax avoidance materials and also sought a list of Benson's customers. The district court enjoined Benson from promoting and selling his package of materials but declined to order him to produce a list of his customers. Benson and the United States appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Ripple and Evans affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. The Court affirmed the lower court's grant of injunctive relief. The Court first concluded that Benson's activities fit within the broad definition of a § 6700 "plan." Second, the Court concluded that Benson knew or should have known that many of the statements included in the materials were false. Finally, the Court concluded that the statements were material because they could have a substantial impact on a person's decision to purchase his package of materials. Next, the Court concluded that the United States met the injunctive relief threshold contained in the statute. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court relied on the facts that Benson's violation was not isolated and that he was not likely to stop without the injunction. With respect to Benson's First Amendment claim, the Court concluded that the language of the injunction was specific enough to prohibit only false or deceptive commercial speech -- -- speech not protected by the First Amendment. Benson is still free to encourage political action, communicate a political message, and otherwise share his views about the 16th Amendment or the federal tax system. The Court reversed the lower court with respect to its decision on the customer list. A district court has the authority to issue orders that may be necessary for the enforcement of the tax laws. The Court noted that such an order would not harm Benson but would serve the public interest by allowing the government to both warn Benson's customers of the falsity of his claims and also to enforce the income tax laws of the United States.

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

CHAKLOS v. STEVENS (March 30, 2009)

Richard Chaklos and Andrew Wist were employees of the Illinois State Police ("ISP"). Their job was to train forensic scientists. Chaklos and Wist also owned Midwest Forensic Services ("MFS"). In 2004, Illinois allocated funds to process a back load of DNA evidence from rape victims. The ISP received some of the money in order to hire and train additional forensic scientists. The ISP decided to retain a Florida company for those services. When Chaklos and Wist learned of this decision, they sent a protest letter to the ISP on MFS letterhead. The letter criticized the ISP for its use of a no-bid process, it criticized the Florida company, and it indicated that MFS could provide the same training at a lower cost. Upon receipt of the letter, the ISP suspended Chaklos and Wist for violating its policy regarding secondary employment. Chaklos and Wist filed a § 1983 action, alleging retaliation for their exercise of First Amendment rights. The district court found that the letter was protected speech but granted summary judgment to defendants on the grounds they were entitled to qualified immunity. Chaklos and Wist appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Rovner and Williams affirmed. The Court noted that the law with respect to qualified immunity had changed since the case was argued. At the time of argument, Saucier required courts to first determine whether a plaintiff had been deprived of a constitutional right and then determine whether that particular right was "clearly established." In Pearson, the Supreme Court recently concluded that lower courts could use their discretion in deciding which prong to address first. In addressing the First Amendment issue, the Court concluded that: a) plaintiffs were not speaking pursuant to their official duties under Garcetti, and b) looking at the content of the speech as a whole, it addressed a matter of public concern and was not motivated solely by personal interests. These conclusions led the Court to a balancing of the interests of the plaintiffs and their government employer. The Court noted the lack of disruption caused by the letter, the ISP's policy allowing secondary employment, the ISP's erratic enforcement of its secondary employment policy, and the dual purpose of the letter. Based on the closeness of this balancing, the Court determined that it was unnecessary to decide whether the letter was constitutionally protected. Instead, the Court concluded that it was not sufficiently clear to a government official that the conduct complained of would violate a constitutional right. The right was therefore not “clearly established." Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

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

CAMPION, BARROW AND ASSOCIATES, INC. v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD (March 24, 2009)

Dr. Michael Campion, through his firm, provided psychological evaluations. His clients included the City of Springfield. The services were provided pursuant to a contract executed in 2000 and automatically renewed annually. Timothy Davlin became mayor in 2003. Davlin was quite vocal in his criticism of psychological evaluations but continued the services on the advice of a city attorney. Beginning in mid-2004, several articles in the local newspaper criticized Dr. Campion for his involvement with a conservative group and his failure to disclose that involvement on his resume. An alderman reacted to the articles by pressuring Davlin to replace Dr. Campion. In mid-2005, the City Council unanimously approved a contract with a different psychologist. Although the city did not terminate the contract with Dr. Campion, it began referring all evaluations to the new psychologist. Dr. Campion brought an action against the city pursuant to § 1983, alleging that the city violated his First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the city, concluding that Campion had not demonstrated that his speech was a motivating factor in the city's decision. Campion appeals

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Wood and Williams affirmed. The Court noted that the only issue before it was whether Campion produced enough evidence that his protected activity was a factor in the city's decision. The Court rejected Campion's argument that it was the mayor, not the City Council, that actually had the power to act. Illinois law authorizes only the City Council to enter into contracts. The evidence here supports the fact that it was the Council that acted. The Court concluded that there was a lack of evidence indicating that the City Council was retaliating against Campion because of his speech or associations.

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

CLANCY v. OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL (March 11, 2009)

Ryan Clancy, an American citizen, traveled to Iraq in January 2003. Clancy's purpose was to protest the United States’ involvement in Iraq by acting as a “human shield.” Upon his return to the United States, Clancy admitted to a customs official the reason for his trip. The Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") issued a Pre-penalty Notice ("PPN"), charging Clancy with providing services to Iraq by shielding facilities from possible military action. OFAC relied on regulations, promulgated post-September 11, restricting trade and transactions with Iraq. OFAC advised Clancy that he could be assessed a penalty of up to $250,000. It offered him the opportunity to make a written response. Clancy submitted a response in which he challenged the validity of the regulations. He did not dispute the factual basis of the charges. OFAC assessed a final civil penalty of $8,000. Clancy filed suit. The district court granted summary judgment against Clancy on all of his claims. Clancy appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Kanne and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed Clancy's procedural due process argument. The relevant inquiry, it said, is whether the procedures afforded presented an unreasonable risk of an erroneous deprivation of a protected interest. The Court concluded that the procedures afforded to Clancy -- the pre-penalty notice, a statement of the underlying facts, an opportunity to respond -- were constitutionally sufficient. The Court then addressed Clancy's challenge to the validity of the regulations. It rejected each of Clancy's arguments. It concluded: a) that the regulations were a proper exercise of OFAC's authority, b) that the travel restrictions were justified by national foreign-policy considerations, c) that Clancy's travel was not "inherently expressive" so as to invoke rights under the First Amendment, and d) that Clancy's actions in Iraq attempted to confer a benefit on the country and therefore met the definition of "services" as that term is used in the regulation.

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

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

HOUSKINS v. SHEAHAN  (November 25, 2008)

Virgean Houskins was an employee of the Cook County Department of Corrections. One September morning in 2001, she found herself sitting in her car in the parking lot of her place of employment, waiting for a parking space to open up. Correctional Officer Keith entered the lot and took what Houskins believed was her space. Houskins uttered some profanities about Keith (which he heard) and proceeded to park in another space. A verbal confrontation between the two ended with Keith striking Houskins in the face. Correctional Officer Calderone arrived a few moments later but did nothing. Houskins reported to work, filed an incident report, and also reported the incident to her supervisor, Tolbert. Tolbert took Houskins and Bowers to the Internal Affairs Division (“IAD”) to make out a complaint. Houskins also filed a police report. The IAD dismissed the charges against Keith and Calderone as not conclusive but upheld an obscene language charge against Houskins. Upon further department review, the finding against Houskins was upheld but the dismissal of the complaint against Keith and Calderone was reversed. Houskins filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Sheriff and Cook County, alleging a) that the Sheriff retaliated against her for filing the complaints and charges against Keith, b) that a “code of silence” policy existed for correctional officers and those who violated it were subject to retaliation, and c) that the Sheriff employed a disciplinary system in which certain officers with clout were exempted from discipline. Houskins also brought pendant state court claims of assault and battery against Keith. At trial, the jury returned a verdict against the Sheriff and Keith. It awarded $240,000 against the Sheriff and $10,000 in compensatory and $50,000 in punitive damages against Keith. The Sheriff and Keith appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Manion and Williams affirmed the judgment and damages award with respect to Keith and reversed and remanded with respect to the Sheriff. The Court first addressed two preliminary procedural issues. Houskins argued that the Sheriff could not appeal a denial of summary judgment after a jury verdict and also that the Sheriff waived the argument by not raising it in the final pre-trial order. The Court noted that while denials of summary judgments motions based on the sufficiency of the evidence are generally not reviewable, the Sheriff’s motion raised a question of law – whether Houskins’ speech was constitutionally protected – and was therefore appealable. The Court also held that the failure to raise it in the final pre-trial order did not constitute a waiver. On the merits of the speech issue, the Court looked to the Supreme Court’s Garcetti decision. Garcetti requires a court first to decide whether a plaintiff is speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public interest. Houskins complained of retaliation for two different instances of speech – her internal complaint and her police report. The Court concluded that her internal complaint was not protected speech. She was required to report misconduct as part of her official job responsibilities. With respect to the police report, the Court concluded that it was not part of her job responsibilities but that she was speaking about a matter of purely personal interest. Her purpose in filing the police report was not to air a grievance about conditions at the jail or her safety as an employee. The Court found that Houskins’ speech was not constitutionally protected and that the lower court therefore erred in denying the Sheriff’s motion for summary judgment. The Court added that Houskins’ Monell claims that the Sheriff had a policy of retaliation and selective discipline had to fail as well. A Monell claim cannot stand where the alleged official policy did not result in a constitutional violation.

With respect to the jury’s verdict for Houskins on her claims of assault and battery against Keith, the Court rejected each of Keith’s arguments on appeal. It held that a) the district court properly asserted supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims since they pertained to the same set of circumstances alleged in the federal claim, b) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a separate trial for Keith, c) the judge’s comments to Keith’s counsel did not indicate bias, and d) the award of punitive damages was not excessive. The Court affirmed the judgment against Keith.

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

CHOOSE LIFE ILLINOIS, INC. v. WHITE (November 7, 2008)

The State of Illinois offers a wide array of license plates that, in addition to an identifying combination of numbers and letters, contain a message or symbol. A vehicle owner can, for example, purchase plates that identify her alma mater, favorite charity, civic organization, or social cause. The Illinois legislature, with irrelevant exceptions, has authorized each specialty plate by statute. Some part of the proceeds from the sale of the plates typically goes to the organization whose message appears on the plate. Choose Life, Inc. (“CLI”) is a not-for-profit company. Its mission is to promote adoptions. CLI collected more than 25,000 signatures from prospective purchasers of a plate bearing the words “Choose Life.” It applied to the Secretary of State (the “Secretary”) for the issuance of the plate. When told by the Secretary that he would not issue a plate without authorizing legislation from the legislature, CLI embarked on a several-year-long unsuccessful campaign to get the legislature to authorize the plate. CLI brought suit against the Secretary alleging a violation of its First Amendment free-speech rights. The court below held that the Secretary did not need legislation, that the program created a private speech forum, and the Secretary’s refusal to issue the “Choose Life” plate was unlawful viewpoint discrimination. The court granted summary judgment to CLI and ordered the Secretary to issue the plates. The Secretary appeals. Pending appeal, the legislature amended the statute to explicitly require legislative approval before a specialty plate could be issued.

In their opinion, Judges Manion (concurring), Evans, and Sykes reversed and remanded. The Court first cursorily dealt with several preliminary issues. In a footnote, the Court recognized a split in the circuits over jurisdiction of specialty license plate cases on both standing and Tax Injunction Act bases. The Court found sufficient allegations of injury to support standing and sided with those circuits that held the Tax Injunction Act did not apply. In another footnote, it dismissed CLI’s argument that the program was facially unconstitutional. The Court held that a legislature need not – indeed, cannot – adopt standards that would control future legislatures. Lastly, the Court held that it would apply the amended statute. Particularly when a party seeks only prospective relief, a court will apply the law as it exists at the time of the appeal.

The Court also recognized a split in the circuits on the next step of its analysis – whether the speech is government speech, private speech, or a hybrid. It noted the Fourth Circuit’s Sons of Confederate Veterans and Rose cases in which that court held that specialty plates gave rise to private or a mixture of private and government speech. That court relied mostly on the facts that the state exercised little editorial control and the vehicle owners were the real speakers. The Court contrasted the Fourth Circuit cases to the later Sixth Circuit decision in Bredesen and the Ninth Circuit decision in Stanton. Relying on an intervening Supreme Court decision in a different speech context and Tennessee’s “total government control” over the design and message of the specialty plate, the Sixth Circuit held that the speech was government speech. The Ninth Circuit rejected the Sixth Circuit’s approach and its reading of the Supreme Court case. It agreed with the Fourth Circuit and held that specialty license plates are not government speech, but must be treated and analyzed as private speech. The Court believed the Fourth and Ninth Circuit approach to be the better one and adopted it. Although the state has approved the message, the most obvious speakers are the vehicle owners who choose to display it.

Having identified the speech as private, the Court proceeded to a forum analysis. Speech restrictions in a traditional or designated public forum come under strict scrutiny. Restrictions on speech in non-public fora, on the other hand, must merely avoid discriminating against certain viewpoints and “be reasonable in light of the forum’s purpose.” The Court concluded that license plates are neither traditional nor designated public fora. They are principally used to identify vehicles and serve only as expressions of ideas in a very limited context. They should be judged as speech in a non-public forum. Here, Illinois excluded all specialty plates on the subject of abortion. The Court held that this was not a discrimination based on viewpoint, but one based on content, and thus permissible. Finally, the Court had “no trouble” finding the restriction reasonable. Even though not government speech, the message on a license plate is closely associated with the state. The Court found it reasonable for a state to decide to maintain a neutral position on a subject like abortion.

Judge Manion concurred in order to raise three points. First, he took issue with the basis for the majority’s conclusion that Illinois entirely excluded the subject of abortion from its program. The only decision evident in the record was the state’s decision not to allow the “Choose Life” plate at issue. Second, he disagreed that the message of CLI and the “Choose Life” plate was pro-life. He viewed it as a “broader middle ground” that did not take a position on the legality of abortion but merely supported more adoptions as an alternative to abortion. Third, he noted his belief that a state could approve a “Choose Life” message and reject abortion-related plates and yet remain viewpoint neutral.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

LASKOWSKI v. SPELLINGS  (October 14, 2008)

In 1999, Congress appropriated $500,000 to the Department of Education (“DOE”) for a grant to the University of Notre Dame to support a teacher quality program. Notre Dame applied for the grant, indicating that the money would support its Alliance for Catholic Education (“ACE”) program. ACE places and trains teachers in Catholic schools in poor neighborhoods. DOE awarded the grant. Laskowski and Cook, two federal taxpayers, sued the Secretary of the DOE, alleging that the appropriation violated the Establishment Clause. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the award of the money but did not seek preliminary injunctive relief. Notre Dame intervened. By the time the court heard the case, the DOE had already paid the full amount of the grant to Notre Dame. The court dismissed the case as moot. The plaintiffs appealed, conceding their request for injunctive relief was moot but contending that other remedies were available. The Seventh Circuit panel agreed that the court could not order the DOE to attempt to recover the money from Notre Dame but split on whether the court could order Notre Dame to repay the disbursed funds, if the appropriation violated the Establishment Clause. The majority reversed the dismissal, holding that it could so order. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded for reconsideration in light of their decision in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Evans, and Sykes affirmed. The only issue facing the Court was whether the plaintiff taxpayers had standing to seek restitution of the grant money from Notre Dame to the U.S. Treasury. The panel began with the general standing rule that payment of taxes is a very generalized interest and usually not enough to establish standing to challenge the constitutionality of government activity. The Court focused on the one exception to the rule. The Supreme Court decided in Flast that a taxpayer could seek to enjoin a specific appropriation of Congress as a violation of the Establishment Clause if the appropriation was made pursuant to Congress’ Article 1, Section 8 taxing and spending power.  

Hein presented a slightly different twist to the standing issue. The Hein taxpayers brought an Establishment Clause challenge to an Executive Branch program funded out of its own general appropriations.  A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit found standing.  The Supreme Court reversed. A three-justice plurality declined to extend the Flast exception beyond the congressional action facts present in the case but also stopped short of overruling Flast, a result preferred by the two-justice concurrence. After the decision in Hein, the panel noted, the Flast exception is now strictly limited to its facts. The only relief for which the taxpayers have standing is injunctive, which is no longer available here. The case is moot and was properly dismissed.

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

FOSTER V. DELUCA (September 29, 2008)

Stacie Foster, a Democrat, was employed by the City of Chicago Heights, Illinois. Shortly after the citizens of Chicago Heights elected a Republican mayor, Anthony DeLuca, her employment was terminated. Foster brought suit against the City and DeLuca under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that her First Amendment freedom of association rights had been violated. The district court granted a motion to dismiss and, on the same day, entered final judgment. Foster moved to alter the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and to amend her complaint. The court denied the motions. Foster appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Evans, and Williams reversed. The Court noted that relief under Rule 60(b) is extraordinary and that its review of the lower court’s denial of leave to amend is for abuse of discretion. Notwithstanding these high bars, the Court determined that the circumstances warranted a reversal. FRCP 15(a) provides that amendments to pleadings should be “freely given” and that one opportunity to amend is available “as a matter of course” before a responsive pleading is served. Since the motion to dismiss is not considered a responsive pleading under Rule 15(a), the court have either given Foster an opportunity to amend or provided an explanation for its denial. The court abused its discretion in not doing either. Also, the court left Foster with no option but to move to alter the judgment since it entered final judgment the same day.

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