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

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

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

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