Bagley v. Blagojevich, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8935

Former IDOC captains sued state and AFSCME officials under §1983 alleging retaliation for attempting to unionize with ISEA.
District court initially held Governor Blagojevich immune from deposition under legislative immunity and later granted summary judgment to Blagojevich and other defendants.
In 2003 Blagojevich administration sought budget efficiencies by reducing management, targeting IDOC's captain positions within a twelve-level hierarchy.
The captain position was vetoed for funding, the line item was eliminated, and the captain role was ultimately cut; a shift commander role was created to replace duties.
Seniority calculations for former captains shifted between RC-6 and CU-500 units under different CBAs, with CMS and agreement treating continuous service for some but not others.
Discovery battles and motions dominated; the district court found legislative immunity protected Blagojevich’s veto, and the case proceeded to summary judgment with remaining issues on causation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Blagojevich's veto was legislative in form and substance	Bagley contends actions were retaliatory and not truly legislative	Blagojevich's veto and related acts were legislative in form and substance	Yes; veto was legislative in form and substance
Whether the district court erred in applying legislative immunity to bar Blagojevich’s deposition	Plaintiffs needed Blagojevich's deposition for relevant information	Legislative immunity shields deposition in this context	No; immunity barred deposition
Whether there is sufficient evidence of causation to support retaliation in the seniority decision	Evidence shows readings of 'continuous' vs 'total' seniority used to punish captains	CBAs and CMS interpretations do not show retaliatory motive; readings were reasonable	Insufficient evidence of causation; district court affirmed summary judgment for lack of retaliation link

Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1998) (legislative acts are immune when in sphere of legislative activity)
Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1951) (nature of act controls immunity, not motive)
Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1967) (legislative immunity shields lawmakers from burden of defending suits)
Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1975) (Speech or Debate Clause; immunity protects from civil actions that disrupt legislative duties)
Nisenbaum v. Milwaukee County, 333 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2003) (elimination of a position involves legislative action, not just firing an employee)
Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2009) (elimination of a position may have prospective implications and be legislative)
Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007) (legislative immunity applies to removal of a position created by statute)
Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig, 204 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (targeting individuals for political reasons may not reflect legislative action)