Daniel Houlihan v. City of Chicago, 871 F.3d 540

Background

Unit 542 was the Chicago Police security detail for the mayor; the plaintiffs (current/former Unit 542 officers) served under Mayor Richard M. Daley and were reassigned after Rahm Emanuel won the 2011 mayoral election.
Emanuel volunteers (officers who volunteered on his campaign) served on a transition detail and five of them were later appointed to Emanuel’s permanent detail; Interim Superintendent Terry Hillard selected a 16-officer detail and appointed Brian Thompson commander.
Plaintiffs (11 officers, white or Hispanic) sued City of Chicago, Mayor Emanuel, and several officials asserting: (1) First Amendment patronage claims under §1983 and Shakman consent-decree violations, and (2) racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII/§1981.
District court granted summary judgment for many defendants, left Hillard, Thompson, and the City for some claims; equal-protection claim proceeded to a jury (verdict for defendants) and Shakman claim went to a bench trial (judgment for City); several plaintiffs’ claims dismissed at summary judgment.
On appeal plaintiffs challenged (a) qualified-immunity dismissal of the First Amendment patronage claim, (b) bench-trial dismissal of the Shakman claim, (c) evidentiary rulings and jury instruction at the equal-protection trial, and (d) summary judgment dismissing Nolan’s, Olson’s, and Roman’s claims.
Court of Appeals affirmed: Hillard and Thompson entitled to qualified immunity on First Amendment claim; district court’s factual findings on Shakman claim were not clearly erroneous; evidentiary exclusions and jury instruction were appropriate or cured; Nolan/Olson/Roman’s claims properly dismissed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment patronage (qualified immunity)	Hillard/Thompson removed plaintiffs for political neutrality and appointed Emanuel volunteers — security-specialist role is protected from patronage	Security-specialist can be a confidential position (close access to mayor), law on patronage for such positions was not clearly established, so officials lack notice	Qualified immunity affirmed; plaintiffs failed to show clearly established constitutional right against patronage for security specialists
Shakman claim (civil contempt/enforcement of consent decrees)	City considered political factors in appointments by using Emanuel aides/volunteers to recommend detail members	Appointments were based on relevant work experience, transition needs, and familiarity with Emanuel; Shakman allows recommendations tied to job-related qualifications	Bench-trial factual findings that political reasons did not cause adverse actions were not clearly erroneous; judgment for City affirmed
Equal Protection — exclusion of historical discrimination evidence	Plaintiffs sought to show department’s historical quota/intent via prior practices to prove discriminatory motive	Evidence was prejudicial, mainly propensity, and of limited probative value; pretrial exclusion under Rules 403/404(b) appropriate	Exclusion not an abuse of discretion (admission also not required despite possible door-opening by defense)
Equal Protection — jury instruction on burden ("motivated in part" vs "because of")	Instruction misstated burden (implied sole-cause standard) and required showing race was the only motive	Court promptly clarified that plaintiffs could prevail if race "contributed to" the decision, curing any wording issue	No reversible error; clarification cured any potential misleading phrasing
Nolan/Olson/Roman — summary judgment and "cat’s paw" theory	Plaintiffs argued McCarthy was influenced by Thompson (cat’s paw) when terminating Daley courtesy detail	McCarthy testified he did not rely on Thompson; no evidence Thompson influenced decision; no adverse action tied to discriminatory motive	Summary judgment affirmed; plaintiffs’ cat’s paw theory was speculative and insufficient to defeat summary judgment

Key Cases Cited

Moss v. Martin, 614 F.3d 707 (7th Cir.) (qualified-immunity and patronage context)
Davis v. Ockomon, 668 F.3d 473 (7th Cir.) (political-loyalty exceptions for employment — policymaking and confidential-access roles)
Soderbeck v. Burnett Cty., Wis., 752 F.2d 285 (7th Cir.) (confidential employee exception rationale)
Benedix v. Vill. of Hanover Park, Ill., 677 F.3d 317 (7th Cir.) (confidential-position analysis where close access to policymaker existed)
Meeks v. Grimes, 779 F.2d 417 (7th Cir.) (analysis of nonconfidential low-level employees)
Matlock v. Barnes, 932 F.2d 658 (7th Cir.) (analysis of employee access and patronage protection)
Shakman v. Democratic Org. of Cook Cty., 533 F.2d 344 (7th Cir.) (origins of consent decrees restricting patronage)
Greene v. Cook County Sheriff’s Office, 79 F. Supp. 3d 790 (N.D. Ill.) (district court treating security-specialist confidentiality as unsettled for qualified-immunity purposes)
Bonnstetter v. City of Chicago, 811 F.3d 969 (7th Cir.) (standard for proving political-cause in Shakman contempt actions)