894 F. Supp. 2d 1067
N.D. Ill.2012Background
- Kolineks own Blackout Sealcoating, a contractor for CTA since 2007, performing asphalt, concrete, and equipment leasing work.
- CTA issued a Notice of Intent to Debar in September 2010 and an Amended Notice in March 2011; Blackout responded in writing.
- On May 8, 2012, CTA decided to debar Blackout and informed them the next day.
- The debarment was posted on CTA’s website and Blackout’s CTA contracts were terminated.
- Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on June 5, 2012 claiming deprivation of occupational liberty and seeking damages and injunctive relief; the court granted the motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether debarment violated occupational liberty | Kolineks allege debarment harmed their right to pursue occupation | CTA maintains no liberty interest was implicated | Plaintiff's liberty claim not stated |
| Whether publication requirement for stigmatization was met | Alleges stigmatizing information was published | Publication not satisfied; reasons not publicly disclosed | Publication element not met |
| Threshold standard for pleading due process claim | Deprivation occurred; due process due | Claims insufficient under Twombly/Iqbal standards | Claims fail under Rule 12(b)(6) |
| Whether debarment constitutes state action for due process purposes | Debarment by CTA state action | Not sufficiently alleged to amount to a liberty deprivation | Not stated; threshold not met |
| Whether amendment could cure defects | Plaintiffs could amend to cure deficiencies | Amendment would not save claim | Cure not possible; claim dismissed anyway |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (occupational liberty is narrow; right to pursue occupations is not unlimitedly protected)
- D’Acquisto v. Washington, 640 F. Supp. 594 (N.D. Ill. 1986) (defines narrow scope of occupational liberty)
- McMahon v. Kindlarski, 512 F.3d 983 (7th Cir. 2008) (allows rejection of liberty claim where not showing impairment of future employment opportunities)
- McMath v. City of Gary, 976 F.2d 1026 (7th Cir. 1992) (publication requirement; stigma must be publicly disclosed to violate liberty interest)
- Strasburger v. Board of Educ., Hardin County, 143 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 1998) (true but stigmatizing statements preclude further government employment do not support liberty claim)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard; conclusory allegations insufficient)