David Kristofek v. Village of Orland Hills
712 F.3d 979
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Kristofek, a part-time officer, was fired after objecting to a driver’s release due to political connections.
- District court dismissed, holding the speech was not on a matter of public concern and asserting lack of protected speech.
- Complaint alleged that Kristofek spoke to fellow officers and the FBI about political corruption and possible illegal activity.
- Circuit panel rejected the district court’s sole focus on self-interest and held mixed motives could still involve a matter of public concern.
- Court concluded Kristofek plausibly alleged that Scully had de facto authority to set hiring/firing policy, supporting a Monell claim against the Village.
- Overall ruling: reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kristofek’s speech involved a matter of public concern | Kristofek’s motive did not bar a public-concern finding; content suggested broad public impact | Speech addressed private concerns about liability, not public policy | Yes; speech involved a matter of public concern |
| Whether Scully had de facto policymaking authority for hiring/firing to support Monell liability | Complaint shows Scully controlled personnel decisions with little board review | Board delegation, if any, precludes policymaking authority | Yes; sufficient plausibility of de facto policymaker authority to state Monell claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaklos v. Stevens, 560 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2009) (motive is relevant but not dispositive to public-concern inquiry)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (S. Ct. 1983) (public-concern inquiry hinges on content, form, and context)
- Gustafson v. Jones, 290 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2002) (motive not dispositive; content matters to public concern)
- Linhart v. Glatfelter, 771 F.2d 1004 (7th Cir. 1985) (focus on objective of speech; content, form, context)
- Delgado v. Jones, 282 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2002) (public-concern analysis depends on content and context)
- Kokkinis v. Ivkovich, 185 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 1999) (public-concern determination by content, form, context)
- Cliff v. Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs of City of Indianapolis, 42 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 1994) (three-factor Connick test for public concern)
- Bivens v. Trent, 591 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2010) (private grievance vs. public concern in speech)
- Gazarkiewicz v. Town of Kingsford Heights, Ind., 359 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2004) (motive not dispositive; public-concern depends on content)
- Valentino v. Village of S. Chicago Heights, 575 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2009) (delegation and policymaker analysis for Monell claims)