Hagan v. Quinn
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15069
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Four Illinois workers’ compensation arbitrators sued in 2011 (the “Due Process Suit”) challenging House Bill 1698, which terminated prior six-year arbitrator appointments and restructured appointments. The district court granted summary judgment; this Court affirmed in Dibble v. Quinn on qualified-immunity grounds.
- While that suit was pending, Governor Quinn declined to reappoint these arbitrators in October 2011; their employment ended. Two years later they filed a new suit alleging First Amendment retaliation (for filing the Due Process Suit) and a state Ethics Act claim, seeking damages and reinstatement or comparable employment.
- The district court dismissed the federal First Amendment claims, holding the Due Process Suit was not protected speech under Connick–Pickering; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim. Plaintiffs appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the First Amendment claims but on a different ground: the arbitrators were "policymakers," so the governor could lawfully decline to reappoint them for publicly opposing administration policy; thus First Amendment protection did not provide relief.
- The court also upheld the district court’s discretionary refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Illinois Ethics Act claim and affirmed dismissal of that claim without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether filing the Due Process Suit was constitutionally protected speech/petitioning by public employees | Their lawsuit challenged a matter of public concern (workers’ compensation reform) and was not purely personal; thus protected | The Suit was essentially self-interested job-protection litigation and not protected; even if protected, officials have interests permitting non-reappointment | Court did not decide public-concern question; instead held plaintiffs were policymakers whose suit undercut administration policy, so First Amendment offers no relief |
| Whether the policymaker/patronage exception bars First Amendment retaliation claims here | Policymaker exception inapplicable because plaintiffs merely sought to vindicate rights and public debate | Arbitrators occupied policymaking roles with meaningful input, so the governor may require political/allegiance loyalty and not reappoint critics | Held: arbitrators are policymakers (statutory powers, adjudicatory discretion, role in shaping policy); exception applies; claim barred |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for actions related to terminating/reappointing arbitrators | Plaintiffs argued actionable retaliation without immunity | Defendants maintained either no clearly established right or that action was permissible under policymaker exception | Court relied on policymaker doctrine; did not reach separate qualified-immunity analysis here |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over state Ethics Act claims | Plaintiffs urged retention or reversal | Defendants supported dismissal without prejudice; federal court should relinquish novel/state-law issues | Held: no abuse of discretion; dismissal without prejudice appropriate; state courts better suited to decide state-law questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (framework for when public-employee speech implicates public concern)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (balancing government employer’s interests against employee speech)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (patronage dismissals and exception for policymaking/confidential positions)
- Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980) (policymaker/confidential exceptions to patronage protections)
- Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U.S. 379 (2011) (petition clause claims analyzed under same framework as speech retaliation)
- Kiddy-Brown v. Blagojevich, 408 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2005) (policymaker corollary to Pickering: policymakers can be removed for public criticism of superiors)
- Wilbur v. Mahan, 3 F.3d 214 (7th Cir. 1993) (policymaking employee fired for political opposition; First Amendment claim defeated by policymaker exception)
- Warzon v. Drew, 60 F.3d 1234 (7th Cir. 1995) (county controller’s public opposition to policy fell within policymaker exception)
- Dibble v. Quinn, 793 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2015) (prior appeal rejecting clearly established right in due-process challenge to H.B. 1698)