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

HERNANDEZ v. FOSTER (August 26, 2011)

Fifteen-month-old Jaymz Hernandez’ parents brought him to the hospital where x-rays established that he had a broken arm. The Hernandezes reported that they thought he had fallen out of his crib. Although the fracture was common in children, a hospital nurse was suspicious. The parents had slightly inconsistent stories about the circumstances of the injury and about whether Jaymz could walk. Jaymz also had unexplained, old bruises. The nurse reported her suspicions to the Department of Children and Family Services. Although the DCFS instructed the hospital to release Jaymz to his parents, it also began an investigation, which it assigned to Pamela Foster-Stith. Foster-Stith interviewed the nurse and doctor and prepared an action plan for a home visit and risk assessment. After receiving the approval of her supervisor, she sent investigator Lakesha Foster to the home. Foster found nothing particular suspicious in her visit. Nevertheless, given the injury and the inconsistent stories, Foster and Foster-Stith wanted a home safety plan. The family resisted. Foster-Stith, in consultation with her supervisor, decided that the Department had to take Jaymz into protective custody. She communicated that decision to Foster, who was still at the family's home. Foster explained the decision to the family, including the fact that they could not have contact with Jaymz during the custody period, and took Jaymz in the custody. Jaymz was placed with his great-grandparents. The next day, two different doctors examined Jaymz. Both concluded that the injury was not suggestive of abuse. Foster also spoke with an assistant state's attorney, who advised her that there was not enough evidence to seek protective custody. Although the Department decided to terminate its protective custody, Foster would still not let the family visit Jaymz. The next day, Foster presented a safety plan to the Hernandezes which would require Jaymz to remain with his great-grandparents with supervised visitation by his parents. After being told that they could not see Jaymz without agreeing to the safety plan, the Hernandezes agreed. The Hernandezes signed another safety plan the following week, which the Department later agreed to terminate. The Hernandezes brought suit pursuant to § 1983 for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, naming Foster, Foster-Stith, and the supervisor. Judge Conlon (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants on qualified immunity grounds. The Hernandezes appeal.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Sykes, Tinder, and Hamilton affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. The question for a qualified immunity defense is whether the defendants violated a clearly established constitutional right. The Court considered each plaintiff’s claims separately. First, all three plaintiffs asserted substantive due process claims with respect to the initial seizure. The Court noted that since Jaymz had a Fourth Amendment claim, he could not assert a substantive due process claim. With respect to Jaymz’ Fourth Amendment claim, the Court concluded that the removal was supported by probable cause. It relied on the unexplained injury, the older injury, and the inconsistent and contradictory statements of the parents. Therefore, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. The parents’ substantive due process claims fail for the same reason. Second, the Court addressed the plaintiffs' substantive due process claims relating to the continued withholding. This claim arises from a right to familial relations. The defendants needed reasonable suspicion of abuse to override that right. Again, however, the court concluded that Jaymz’ claim was properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment while his parents' claims should be analyzed under substantive due process. Here, the Court found genuine issues of material fact with respect to defendants' knowledge that the continued withholding violated constitutional rights. The Court relied heavily on the normal physical exams and the assistant state's attorney's response. Summary judgment was improper. Third, the Court addressed the substantive due process claims regarding the allegedly coerced safety plan. The Court concluded that the defendants had no reasonable suspicion that Jaymz was in danger of abuse when they presented the safety plan. The alleged threats were extremely coercive. The Court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on those claims. Next, the Court considered the plaintiffs' procedural due process claims. The basis of these claims was that the defendants took Jaymz into custody without any pre-deprivation hearing. Here, the Court concluded that the case law at the time of the removal would not have put a reasonable Department investigator on notice that a pre-deprivation hearing was required. The defendants were therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claim relating to the removal. Again, however, the Court found genuine issues of fact on the due process claim with respect to the safety plan. With the allegations of misrepresentations and coercion, qualified immunity would be appropriate.

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

JACKSON v. INDIAN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT 204 (August 11, 2011)

Paula Jackson is a special education support teacher for Indian Prairie School District 204. Her role was to assist the classroom teachers by providing individual support for special needs students. Beginning with the 2005-2006 school year, she was assigned to the White Eagle Elementary School. For the following three school years, she had responsibility for W. K., a troubled boy prone to violence. Over those three years, she witnessed episode after episode of erratic and violent behavior. The district held Individual Education Plan meetings in April 2006, June of 2006 , September of 2006, May of 2007, June 2007, October 2007, and March 2008. By the early 2007 meetings, Jackson recommended that the W.K. be transferred. Jackson also requested that he be reassigned to a different support teacher. Before either of those things happened, W.K. had another outburst. The school principal calmed him down and instructed Jackson to meet with him. When she arrived at his room, he swung a chair at her. In the ensuing struggle, she fell and was injured. W.K. was suspended and never returned to White Eagle. Jackson brought suit against the school district and several administrators pursuant to § 1983, alleging a substantive due process violation. Judge St. Eve (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Jackson appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Bauer, Posner, and Williams affirmed. The Court noted the two exceptions to the general rule that the due process clause does not impose a duty on a state to protect individuals from harm by private actors. One is when the state has custody over a person, which is not applicable here. The other, on which Jackson bases her claim, is when the state affirmatively places a person in danger. Under that exception, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant affirmatively created or increased the danger, that her injuries were the proximate result of the defendant's failure to protect her, and the failure to protect her "shocks the conscience." The Court resolved the case on that third prong. Although the "shocks the conscience" standard is not precisely defined, the Court noted that it requires conduct on the "more culpable end of the tort law spectrum of liability." The Court recited the facts that supported a finding of such conduct and those that supported the opposite conclusion. Although admitting that it was a close call, the Court concluded that they did not satisfy the due process standard.

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

SILIVEN v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SERVICES (March 16, 2011)

Teresa and Mark Siliven’s two-year-old son had been in daycare with Ashley Woods for almost a year. When Teresa picked him up one day in January 2008, Woods told her that the boy had been acting up. Later that evening, Teresa noticed bruises on her son's arm. Mark said he knew nothing about them, so they filed a child-abuse report with the Richmond, Indiana Police Department. The report was forwarded to the Indiana Department of Child Services(DCS). DCS caseworker Amber Luedike investigated. She interviewed Mark and Teresa, as well as Woods. Luedike also asked the Siliven’s to take their son to the emergency room for an examination. Although the emergency room report reached no conclusion as to the cause of the bruises, another doctor to whom Luedike showed the bruises opined that they were consistent with an adult grabbing the boy's arm. Six days into her investigation, Luedike learned that the DCS had substantiated an incident of child abuse involving Mark and his 15-year-old stepdaughter five years earlier. Luedike met with her supervisor, a staff attorney, and a DCS director. She recommended that DCS remove the boy from his home. She based her recommendation on the likelihood that he had been injured by an adult, the fact that the parents had not been eliminated as the cause, and Mark’s earlier incident. The others agreed, and also agreed that they should remove him on an emergency basis because they would be unable to obtain a court order before the upcoming weekend. Luedike and several sheriff’s deputies went to the Siliven's home, intending to take the boy into protective custody. The DCS director eventually agreed, however, to allow Teresa to take the boy to his grandmother's home in Ohio. The following Monday, a judge concluded that probable cause to believe that the boy’s physical health was seriously endangered did not exist. DCS closed its investigation. The Silivens filed suit against Luedike and the DCS director, alleging federal Constitutional and state law violations. Judge Lawrence (S.D. Ind.) granted summary judgment to the defendants based on qualified immunity. He did not address whether there was a constitutional violation but, under the second prong of the qualified immunity test, held that the constitutional rights allegedly violated were not clearly established at the time of the conduct. The Silivens appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion, and Evans affirmed. The Court’s two-part test is familiar: whether the complaint alleges a constitutional violation and whether the rights allegedly violated were clearly established at the time of the conduct. Unlike the district court, which ignored the first prong and found the second prong dispositive, the Court started with the first prong and found it dispositive. With respect to the Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim, the Court assumed without deciding that there was a seizure (remember that the boy never left his mother's side) but concluded that the defendants' acts were reasonable under an objective test. There was physical evidence of abuse, Mark had access to the boy, and the DCS had substantiated an earlier abuse claim against Mark. Those facts, particularly combined with the fact that the boy remained with his mother at all times, were enough for the Court to find reasonableness. With respect to the substantive due process claim, the Court noted that the constitutional right to familial integrity has to be balanced against the public interest in child safety. A caseworker need only have reasonable suspicion of past or threatened abuse to take a child into custody. Since that threshold is less demanding than the Fourth Amendment threshold the Court already discussed, the Court had no difficulty in concluding that there was no substantive due process violation. Finally, the Siliven's also alleged a procedural due process violation. Due process does require a pre-deprivation hearing before a child is removed from his home, unless there are exigent circumstances. This also requires an objective test, whether a reasonable caseworker would have believed the child was in immediate danger. Again, that test is less stringent than the Fourth Amendment test. The Court concluded that the defendants met the test.

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

BETTENDORF v. ST. CROIX COUNTY (January 20, 2011)

John Bettendorf has owned a parcel of property in St. Croix County in west-central Wisconsin for decades. In the 1970s and early 1980s, Bettendorf operated a carpet sales business on the property although it was zoned agricultural-residential. In 1985, Bettendorf sought and received permission to use the property for commercial purposes. The ordinance granting permission also provided, however, that the permission was personal to Bettendorf and could not be transferred. Almost 20 years later, Bettendorf sought a declaration in state court that the limitations on the rezoning were void and should be stricken. Unfortunately, the state court declared the entire ordinance void. The County withdrew its permission for commercial operations. Bettendorf filed suit in federal court alleging an unconstitutional taking and violations of his procedural and substantive due process rights. Judge Crabb (W.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to the County. Bettendorf appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum, and Hamilton (concurring in part and dissenting in part) affirmed. The Court first addressed the takings claim. It stated that Bettendorf had to establish that government action had deprived him of "all or substantially all" use of the property. The relevant factors are the nature of the regulatory scheme, the severity of the economic impact, and the degree of interference with the owner's investment opportunities. Here, there was no government intrusion or interference with investment opportunities because Bettendorf himself brought the state action that resulted in the declaration that the ordinance was void. Bettendorf also has not lost the use of the property. He is free to use the property for the agricultural and residential purposes for which it is zoned. The Court thus rejected the takings claim. On the substantive due process claim, the Court stated that Bettendorf would have to establish that the County's decisions were "arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable." But here, the County's actions were taken in response to a court order invalidating the ordinance. The Court rejected the substantive due process claim, finding that action utterly reasonable. Finally, the Court addressed and rejected Bettendorf's procedural due process claim. Bettendorf's due process claim is that he was not afforded the typical County appeals process in a rezoning case. The Court noted, however, that it was Bettendorf who chose to challenge the ordinance in state court in lieu of the local appeals process. Bettendorf was afforded adequate process in those state court proceedings. Even if the local appeals process was a superior method for resolving the issue, due process does not require superior process -- only constitutionally adequate process.

Judge Hamilton concurred with the majority's treatment of the due process claims but dissented from its treatment of the takings claim. He relied on the "vested rights" theory that the majority concluded was inadequately presented. Judge Hamilton surveyed the "long and winding history" of the concept in American law. Under the concept, an existing and lawful property use is a critical consideration in a takings claim. Judge Hamilton thus addressed the three factors quite differently than did the majority. First, the nature of the government interference is significant in that it prohibited a long time existing and lawful property use. Second, the economic impact appears to be significant although unclear on the pleadings. Third, although Bettendorf did agree to the condition, the withdrawal of permission substantially interfered with his investment expectations. Judge Hamilton recognized that his consent to the condition limited his expectations to continued commercial use only as long as he owns the property and would thus negatively affect any compensation due.

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

LABELLA WINNETKA, INC. v. THE VILLAGE OF WINNETKA (December 29, 2010)

LaBella Winnetka operated as a restaurant in Winnetka, Illinois since 1993. It occupies a leased space and renews the lease from time to time. It also has a liquor license. Each year, Winnetka sends it a renewal form. Each year LaBella completes the form and Winnetka renews the license. A fire at the building in early 2007 damaged the roof over the LaBella dining room and forced its closure. The Village refused to allow repairs to the restaurant’s interior until the roof was fixed. It also refused to allow LaBella to reopen the undamaged portion of its leased premises. At the same time, other restaurants, even one operating out of the same building, were allowed to reopen in allegedly similar circumstances. LaBella's most recent liquor license was due to expire in March of 2008. Winnetka never sent a renewal form and terminated the license went LaBella did not file for renewal. LaBella brought suit against the Village and the Village Manager, alleging a violation of its equal protection, substantive due process, and procedural due process rights. The complaint alleged that the benefits bestowed on the other restaurants came about because of their friendships with the Village Manager. Judge Kendall (N.D. Ill.) granted defendants' motion to dismiss. LaBella appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Posner, Flaum, and Sykes affirmed. The Court first considered the "class of one" equal protection claim. In order to state such a claim, one must allege treatment different from others "similarly situated." LaBella concedes that the restaurants that were allowed to reopen did not incur the same major fire damage as the LaBella roof. They are therefore not "similarly situated" and the equal protection claim fails. The Court next considered and rejected LaBella's substantive due process claim relating to its property interest in its lease and business. In order to prevail on that claim, LaBella had to show an independent constitutional violation or the inadequacy of state law remedies. It did neither. Finally, the Court rejected LaBella's procedural due process claims related to the liquor license non-renewal. First, to the extent the claim is based on the Village's simple failure to send a renewal form, there was no constitutional deprivation. Second, to the extent the claim is that the Village revoked the license without notice or hearing, the allegations of the complaint fall far short of even the notice pleading requirements of the federal rules. Finally, the claim fails because LaBella does not even allege that it took advantage of post-deprivation remedies or that they were inadequate.

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

KAHN v. BLAND (December 23, 2010)

The “Section 8” federal housing subsidy program provides rental assistance to low-income families. Although funded federally, the program is administered by local public housing agencies. Both the beneficiary families and the participating landlords must meet certain qualifications and are governed by a host of regulations. In Champaign County, Illinois, the program is run by the Housing Authority of Champaign County (HACC). In 2003, Latif Kahn, a qualified landlord with a contract with HACC, rented a subsidized apartment to Andrew Washington. At Washington' request, and allegedly with the approval of HACC, Kahn also rented some space in the building's basement to Washington outside the program. After Kahn evicted Washington in for nonpayment of rent, Washington brought the existence of this "side lease" to the HACC's executive director. The director advised Kahn that the lease was a violation of program regulations and that he was terminating Kahn's contracts and barring him from the program. Kahn was never given an opportunity to explain or appeal. The HACC sent a letter to each of Kahn's four tenants and advised them that they would have to move. In fact, however, Kahn’s contract with respect to only one of the tenants was terminated pursuant to the letter. Another contract was terminated when the contracted unit failed to pass an inspection. The other two tenants actually remained. One prospective tenant was denied an opportunity to rent an apartment from Kahn and was told by HACC that Kahn was an "undesired person." Kahn brought suit, alleging procedural and substantive due process claims against the director and a due process claim against HACC. Chief Judge McCuskey (C.D. Ill) granted the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of plaintiff's case. Kahn appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Posner and Tinder affirmed. Both the substantive and procedural due process claims require the identification of a property or liberty interest. The Court concluded that Kahn had not established a property interest from a) his termination from the program, b) the termination of the contracts, or c) disputes regarding the remaining contracts. First, notwithstanding his allegations, the record was clear that he was never terminated from the program. The director made threatening statements but had no authority to bar Kahn from the program and, in fact, Kahn continued to participate in the program. Second, although the HACC did refuse to enter into new contracts with Kahn, nothing in the statute or regulations entitles him to enter into new contracts. Finally, Kahn's rights with respect to his existing contracts do not raise constitutional issues. They simply give rise to possible state breach of contract claims. With respect to a liberty interest, the Court concluded that Kahn forfeited the claim -- but also concluded that the claim would not succeed. The liberty interest recognized by the Fourteenth Amendment protects a person's right to pursue an occupation, but not a specific job. Here, although the defendants' conduct may have affected Kahn 's ability to lease to certain individuals, it did not preclude him from his occupation.

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

PALKA v. SHELTON (October 7, 2010)

Peter Palka's hopes of becoming a Chicago police officer were dashed when he was kicked out of the Police Academy. His father Tadeusz, a 28-year veteran of the Cook County Sheriff's Department, thought the termination was discriminatory and based on the fact that Peter was Polish. The elder Palka tried to convince Matthew Tobias, the official in charge of the Academy, to reinstate his son. Tobias assured Palka that Peter was terminated for cause and refused to reverse the decision. A few months later, the receptionist at his children’s school advised Tobias that an unidentified man with a Polish accent called and asked questions about the children. Tobias suspected Palka and began an investigation. Phone records revealed that someone in the Cook County Building at 69 W. Washington in Chicago had placed a call to the school on the afternoon in question. Tobias was now convinced -- he reported the call to the local police, he opened an incident report and checked Palka for outstanding warrants, he asked senior officers to speak with Palka, and he filed a formal complaint with the Sheriff's Department's Office of Internal Affairs. Palka was suspended with pay. Shortly before a formal disciplinary hearing that would decide his fate, the Department offered Palka full retirement benefits (including badge and firearm credentials) if he resigned. He did resign, but never received his credentials. Palka filed suit pursuant to § 1983, alleging procedural and substantive due process violations, occupational liberty deprivations, and Monell claims. Judge Kendall (N.D. Ill.) dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Palka appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Kanne, and Sykes affirmed. The Court rejected each of Palka’s contentions in turn. First, the procedural due process claim relating to his suspension fails because a suspension with pay does not trigger due process protection unless there is a claim of indirect economic consequences. Palka makes no such allegation. Second, the procedural due process claim relating to his resignation also fails. Palka was simply given a choice to avail himself of the procedural protections offered by the Merit Board (and risk losing everything) or to resign with retirement benefits. He was not deprived of due process protections -- he traded them away. Third, the substantive due process claim fails. Public employment termination does not give rise to a substantive due process claim unless it is accompanied by an allegation of other constitutional violations or inadequate state remedies, neither of which is present here. To the extent that Palka relied on police misconduct to support the substantive due process claim, the Court stated that it did not meet the high “shocks the conscience” threshold. Fourth, the occupational liberty claim fails. Palka failed to allege public disclosure an essential element of the claim. The County's failure to grant him badge and firearm credentials, on which Palka bases this claim, was not publicly disclosed nor does Palka allege that any potential future employer learned of it. Finally, because there is no constitutional violation, there can be no Monell liability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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