Dick Lalowski v. City of Des Plaines, 789 F.3d 784

Background

On May 20, 2006, Off-duty (and earlier on-duty) Des Plaines officer Dick Lalowski confronted anti‑abortion demonstrators displaying large aborted‑fetus signs; his conduct included insults, profanity, physical contact, and an extended off‑duty return to the clinic where he identified himself as an officer.
Demonstrators filed complaints; internal investigators concluded Lalowski’s conduct was “harsh, profane, and unruly,” and Police Chief Prandini suspended Lalowski and filed charges with the Des Plaines Board of Fire and Police Commissioners seeking termination.
The Board conducted hearings, credited the demonstrators’ accounts over Lalowski’s, relied on Lalowski’s prior disciplinary history, sustained the charges, and unanimously terminated him; the Board issued a decision on May 30, 2008.
Lalowski sued Prandini, the Board, and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and sought administrative review of the Board’s decision under Illinois law; the district court granted summary judgment against Lalowski on both claims.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment against Lalowski on the First Amendment claim but vacated the sua sponte grant of summary judgment for the Board on the administrative‑review claim because the district court failed to give notice and a reasonable time to respond as required by Rule 56(f).
The appellate court remanded the administrative‑review claim and noted the district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction because the federal claim was resolved.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lalowski’s statements were constitutionally protected speech under Connick‑Pickering	Lalowski argued his criticisms of demonstrators’ use of graphic signs addressed matters of public concern and were protected speech	Defendants argued his abusive language, manner, and role as an officer (on/off duty) justified discipline and were not protected	Held: None of Lalowski’s statements were constitutionally protected after Pickering balancing; summary judgment for defendants affirmed
Whether protected speech was a motivating factor in his termination (causation)	Lalowski alleged termination was retaliation for his speech	Defendants maintained discipline was justified by misconduct and history; the Board would have discharged him regardless	Court did not reach causation because it found no protected speech
Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment sua sponte for the Board on the administrative‑review claim	Lalowski argued he had no opportunity to brief that claim and Rule 56(f) required notice and time to respond	Board argued the administrative claim should be decided first and supported resolution on the record	Held: District court erred—summary judgment for the Board vacated for failure to give required notice and reasonable time to respond; remanded
Whether federal court should retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state administrative‑review claim on remand	Lalowski preferred district court defer review until constitutional issues resolved; defendants argued state decision could preclude federal claims	District court may relinquish jurisdiction when federal claims are resolved	Held: Court left exercise of supplemental jurisdiction to district court’s discretion on remand; noted usual practice is to relinquish when federal claims are dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (establishes public‑employee speech doctrine and public‑concern threshold)
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (requires balancing employee speech against government‑employer interests)
Hutchins v. Clarke, 661 F.3d 947 (describes three‑step framework for § 1983 public‑employee retaliation claims)
Gustafson v. Jones, 290 F.3d 895 (lists Pickering factors for balancing)
Kokkinis v. Ivkovich, 185 F.3d 840 (permits employer to consider potential disruptiveness of speech)
Locurto v. Giuliani, 447 F.3d 159 (discusses police officers’ need to maintain public trust and impartiality)
Phelan v. Cook County, 463 F.3d 773 (applies Connick‑Pickering test in public‑employee context)
Coady v. Steil, 187 F.3d 727 (addresses when off‑duty speech is attributable to employer)
Breuer v. Hart, 909 F.2d 1035 (recognizes urgency of preserving discipline in law‑enforcement employment)