Failure To Produce Evidence That Defendants Knew of Plaintiff's Political Activity Dooms § 1983 Claim For Political Firing
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.
