Greene v. Cook County Sheriff's Office
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13923
| N.D. Ill. | 2015Background
- Three Cook County Sheriff's Office employees (Greene, Jones, Santoyo) served as "security specialists" on Todd Stroger’s Board President detail and were reassigned after Toni Preckwinkle won the 2010 election.
- Preckwinkle (through her chief of staff) expressed she did not want Stroger’s people on her detail because of distrust/political animosity; the Sheriff’s Office effectuated transfers (Holbrook signed Santoyo’s transfer).
- Security specialists were Sheriffs Office employees paid from its budget but operated jointly with the Board President’s office; there was no formal job description or consistent hiring process until December 2010.
- Cook County and the Sheriff’s Office were subject to Shakman consent decrees prohibiting political patronage; the security specialist position was not listed as Shakman-exempt, and Article W (adopted December 2010) forbids political considerations in selections.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming their removals were politically motivated (First and Fourteenth Amendment violations). The Sheriff’s Office and County moved for summary judgment; Preckwinkle asserted qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether security specialist is a "confidential" position exempting it from First Amendment patronage protections | Security specialists did not exercise policymaking or confidential discretion; duties focused on protection and driving and did not justify patronage exception | Position involves intimate access to President, possible overhearing of confidential matters, and thus loyalty/confidentiality justify exemption | Court: disputed facts preclude deciding as a matter of law; Defendants failed to show position is confidential as a matter of law (summary judgment denied on this ground) |
| Whether Plaintiffs established a prima facie political-retaliation claim (protected conduct, deprivation, causation) | Nonaffiliation with Preckwinkle is protected; removal was a demotion/loss of pay and prestige; timing and communications show political motivation | Sheriffs Office argues transfers were ministerial administrative acts, not motivated by politics; County argues Plaintiffs can't show causation/but-for and no duty | Court: Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence on all three elements to survive summary judgment against Sheriff’s Office and County (prima facie established) |
| Whether Sheriff’s Office/Holbrook are liable when President’s Office initiated removal (causation, ratification, cat’s-paw) | Even if President initiated, Sheriffs Office effectuated transfers with knowledge and thus ratified/caused action; cat’s-paw theory supports liability | Defendants claim they merely complied with President’s request and had non-political administrative reasons (e.g., end detail, reassign due to staffing) | Court: factual disputes exist (Towne/Nolan involvement, Holbrook’s actions); issues of causation/ratification go to jury (summary judgment denied) |
| Whether Preckwinkle is entitled to qualified immunity | Plaintiffs: Shakman decrees and established First Amendment patronage law put Preckwinkle on notice that politically-motivated removals were unlawful | Preckwinkle: law ambiguous for this intermediate factual posture (close-protection role between policymaker and nonpolicy); absence from Shakman-exempt lists and uncertainty support immunity | Court: granted qualified immunity to Preckwinkle — right not "clearly established" here given ambiguous precedent and facts; summary judgment granted as to Preckwinkle but denied as to Cook County and Sheriffs Office |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62 (prohibition on political patronage hiring/firing)
- Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (functional test for when party affiliation is valid job requirement)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (political patronage and First Amendment protections)
- Meeks v. Grimes, 779 F.2d 417 (7th Cir. 1985) (discusses political animosity and confidentiality; reversed confidential-status finding)
- Matlock v. Barnes, 932 F.2d 658 (confidentiality depends on facts; jury credibility important)
- Carlson v. Górecki, 374 F.3d 461 (access to confidential materials plus hostility not automatically exempt)
- Benedix v. Village of Hanover Park, 677 F.3d 317 (close, right-hand relationship can support confidential-status finding)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (cat’s-paw liability in employment cases)
- Riley v. Blagojevich, 425 F.3d 357 (job description as safe harbor for patronage decisions)
- Davis v. Ockomon, 668 F.3d 473 (policymaking/confidentiality categories still relevant post-Branti)
- Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, 679 F.3d 957 (motivating-factor standard for patronage claims)