262 F. Supp. 3d 591
N.D. Ill.2017Background
- Cannici was a Melrose Park firefighter hired in 2000; in 2008 his family moved to a house in Orland Park while he continued to treat his Melrose Park house as his residence.
- In 2013 he began staying primarily at the Orland Park home after renting part of the Melrose Park house; he contends he never intended to abandon Melrose Park residency and maintained indicia of residence (taxes, mail, personal property).
- In June 2016 Fire Chief Beltrame filed charges alleging Cannici violated the Village residency ordinance; a Board hearing was held August 4, 2016, where Cannici testified and submitted a brief.
- Cannici alleges ex parte communications between the Board’s counsel and the prosecuting attorney before the hearing and that the Board mischaracterized his testimony and ignored evidence; he also alleges selective enforcement (other firefighters similarly situated were not charged).
- The Board terminated Cannici on August 24, 2016; Cannici sued in state court under the Illinois Administrative Review Act and asserted § 1983 claims for procedural due process and equal protection. Defendants removed; the district court considered 12(b)(6) motions on the § 1983 counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process (§ 1983) | Cannici argues board’s ex parte communications and one-sided finding deprived him of meaningful pretermination hearing | Defendants argue Illinois Administrative Review Act provides adequate post-deprivation remedy and pretermination process was sufficient (notice, counsel, testimony) | Dismissed: Cannici failed to seek post-deprivation state review or allege its inadequacy; pretermination protections met initial-check standard |
| Equal protection — class-of-one theory | Cannici contends he was selectively enforced against while similarly situated firefighters were not | Defendants invoke Engquist and related precedent barring class-of-one claims in public employment | Dismissed: Engquist and Seventh Circuit precedent bar class-of-one claims by public employees |
| Remand of administrative claim | Cannici does not oppose remand if federal counts dismissed | Defendants removed case to federal court but moved to dismiss federal claims | Court dismissed federal claims and remanded the remaining Administrative Review Act claim to state court |
| Quasi-judicial immunity (raised by Board Members) | Cannici asserted constitutional claims against Board Members | Board Members argued immunity | Court did not decide immunity because claims were dismissed on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Michalowicz v. Village of Bedford Park, 528 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 2008) (post-deprivation remedies satisfy due process where misconduct is random/unauthorized)
- Leavell v. Illinois Department of Natural Resources, 600 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff must pursue state post-deprivation remedies or show their inadequacy)
- Stachowski v. Town of Cicero, 425 F.3d 1075 (7th Cir. 2005) (administrative review adequate to cure claimed due process defects)
- Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (class-of-one equal protection theory inapplicable in public employment context)
- Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 675 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2012) (Engquist’s bar on public-employee class-of-one claims is categorical)
- Lavalais v. Village of Melrose Park, 734 F.3d 629 (7th Cir. 2013) (pleading-stage standard: court accepts complaint allegations as true)