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

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

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

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

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

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