Breuder v. Bd. of Trs. of Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 502
888 F.3d 266
7th Cir.2018Background
- Robert L. Breuder was hired as president of College of DuPage in 2008 on a multi-year contract (extended through 2019); Board elected in 2015 discharged him without notice or a hearing and published resolutions alleging misconduct.
- The Board refused to pay severance/retirement benefits called for by the contract.
- Breuder sued under Illinois contract and defamation law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming deprivation of property and liberty without due process.
- The Board (entity) moved to dismiss arguing Breuder never had a valid multi-year contract under Illinois law (Millikin rule); individual members asserted qualified immunity.
- The district court denied both motions; interlocutory appeals were taken (contract-validity appeal certified under §1292(b); qualified-immunity interlocutory appeal authorized under Mitchell v. Forsyth).
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed whether community-college boards can bind future boards to multi-year presidential contracts and whether the Board-members are entitled to qualified immunity for failing to provide a hearing/name-clearing process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Breuder's multi-year contract under Illinois law | Breuder's contract was valid under statutes allowing community-college boards to establish tenure/terms for administrative personnel | Millikin rule prohibits governmental bodies from making contracts extending past members' terms; thus contract (and extensions) void | Contract valid: Hostrop controls; statutes (110 ILCS 805/3-32) allow multi-year presidential contracts, so Breuder had a legitimate contract claim |
| Validity of specific contract clauses (supermajority for dismissal; unilateral one-year extension by chair) | Clauses are part of the contract entitling Breuder to protections | Clauses conflict with Illinois statutory rules on board action and Open Meetings Act, rendering contract void | Court declined to invalidate entire contract for possibly defective clauses; severability applies and clause disputes can be resolved later on final judgment |
| Procedural due process (name-clearing/hearing) after discharge with defamatory statements | Breuder entitled to a pre- or post-deprivation name-clearing hearing when Board publicly alleged misconduct as part of discharge | Board contends statements were non-actionable opinion / First Amendment or that no hearing was required because contract invalid | Held for Breuder: longstanding Supreme Court precedents (Roth, Codd, Constantineau) clearly require a hearing/name-clearing; Board members violated clearly established rights |
| Qualified immunity of individual Board members | Breuder: members not entitled to immunity because law was clearly established requiring a hearing/name-clearing and a legitimate entitlement existed | Members argue uncertainty about contract validity and reliance on legal advice meant no clear constitutional violation | Held against members: lack of clarity about contract does not defeat clearly established right to hearing where public defamation accompanied discharge; qualified immunity denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Hostrop v. Board of Junior College District No. 515, 523 F.2d 569 (7th Cir. 1975) (statute permits community-college boards to establish tenure policies for administrative personnel; controls contract-validity question)
- Millikin v. Edgar County, 142 Ill. 528 (Ill. 1892) (traditional rule that governmental bodies may not bind future boards by contracts extending beyond members' terms)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property/entitlement doctrine requiring due process when there is a legitimate claim of entitlement)
- Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977) (public employee who is stigmatized by false charges connected to discharge is entitled to a name-clearing hearing)
- Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971) (recognizes liberty interest in reputation requiring procedural protection)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (interlocutory appeals permitted for qualified-immunity rulings)
- Swint v. Chambers County Commission, 514 U.S. 35 (1995) (limits on pendent appellate jurisdiction; interlocutory review should be narrowly applied)
- Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2010) (interlocutory appeals under §1292(b) should be tightly constrained)