Delapaz v. Richardson
634 F.3d 895
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Delapaz and Sarkauskas, City of Chicago DSS employees, were assigned as acting up to higher positions with pay differentials.
- Peter Picardi became DSS Commissioner in June 2005; Richardson was Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Street Operations.
- Picardi directed all acting employees to be returned to their titled positions; exception for snow removal was made by Picardi and delegated to Richardson.
- In summer 2005, Richardson told Delapaz he would no longer be acting up and would return to foreman; two weeks later, Sarkauskas was likewise returned to his titled position.
- Delapaz and Sarkauskas allege their demotions were retaliation for affiliation with the Hispanic Democratic Organization (HDO); Richardson denies this and says he followed Picardi's directive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Richardson can be liable under § 1983 | Delapaz insists Richardson caused the demotions due to HDO affiliation. | Richardson argues he acted under Picardi's directive and had no personal involvement. | No § 1983 liability; Picardi made the decision or deputies followed his directive. |
| Whether plaintiffs can prove Richardson knew of HDO affiliation | Knowledge of HDO affiliation shown by 'your guy' remark. | No link shown between Sanchez and HDO or Richardson's knowledge. | Insufficient evidence of knowledge; no causation established. |
| Whether plaintiffs waived issue of Richardson's personal involvement | N/A | Plaintiffs failed to address Richardson's personal involvement in their response briefs. | Waived; arguments not raised below are waived on appeal. |
| Whether plaintiffs established a prima facie First Amendment retaliation claim | Demotions were for political affiliation with HDO. | No evidence that affiliation caused demotions; timing alone is insufficient. | No causation; no evidence linking demotions to HDO affiliation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunville v. Walker, 583 F.3d 979 (7th Cir. 2009) (political affiliation protection and but-for causation in First Amendment claims)
- Fairley v. Andrews, 578 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 2009) (prima facie elements for First Amendment retaliation)
- Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 1996) (§ 1983 causation standard and involvement requirement)
- Caldwell v. City of Elwood, 959 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1992) (connectivity between the applicant and defendant for § 1983)
- Hicks v. Midwest Transit, Inc., 500 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (arguments not raised below are waived on appeal)
- Goodman v. National Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment evidentiary standards and 'put up or shut up')
- Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 1994) (importance of precise responses in Local Rule 56.1 statements)
- Rockwell Automation, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 544 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2008) (evidentiary burden and sufficiency in summary judgment context)