Hernandez v. Cook County Sheriff's Office
634 F.3d 906
7th Cir.2011Background
- On February 11, 2006, a jailbreak in the ABO unit of the Cook County jail led to six SORT officers being investigated and suspended after internal security failures.
- Darin Gater identified several plaintiffs as having advance knowledge or involvement, prompting internal and criminal probes into the alleged misconduct.
- Plaintiffs alleged the investigations and sanctions were retaliatory, retaliating against them for safety complaints and political support for a Sheriff candidate Remus.
- Political context: Remus challenged the incumbent sheriff Dart; SORT officers supported Remus, creating alleged intra-agency tension and potential motive for harsh discipline.
- Following the jailbreak, some plaintiffs faced administrative charges, suspensions, transfers, or terminations, while the SORT unit was disbanded.
- The district court denied summary judgment on qualified immunity for political retaliation claims, but granted it for workplace-safety retaliation; the Seventh Circuit reviews waiver and merits on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether political retaliation violates the First Amendment | Hernandez argues the investigation was retaliatory for political affiliation. | Kaufmann/CCSO contend no constitutional violation given legitimate investigation purposes. | Reversed for remand on qualified immunity; merits of political retaliation to be reconsidered. |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on political retaliation claims | Plaintiffs claim clearly established rights were violated by retaliation. | Defendants maintain reasonable belief in investigation; no clearly established violation. | Remanded for district court to reconsider qualified immunity on political retaliation claims. |
| Whether the district court erred in finding waiver of qualified immunity for First Amendment claims | Waiver occurred due to the defendants' opening brief on qualified immunity being brief and underdeveloped. | Waiver not established; opening brief adequately notified plaintiffs. | Waiver rejected; qualified immunity issue remains for review. |
| Whether the workplace-safety retaliation claim is protected by qualified immunity | Claimant argues safety complaints are protected speech and retaliatory actions violated rights. | Speech occurred as part of official duties; Garcetti/Spiegla I control outcome. | Qualified immunity awarded; no constitutional violation based on undisputed facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (public employees speaking pursuant to official duties are not protected)
- Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1983) (public employee speech on matters of public concern then Pickering balance applied)
- Pickering v. Board of Educ. of Tpwnshp. H.S. Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balance between employee rights and government efficiency)
- Spiegla v. Hull, 481 F.3d 961 (7th Cir. 2007) (Garcte expansion of official duties in non-core contexts (Spiegla II))
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step inquiry for qualified immunity (constitutional violation and clearly established rights))
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (qualified immunity framework and its precedential value)
- Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (U.S. 2006) (probable cause as circumstantial evidence of absence of retaliation)
- Levan v. George, 604 F.3d 366 (7th Cir. 2010) (jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity when issue is legal)