John Cannici v. Village of Melrose Park, 885 F.3d 476

John Cannici was a Melrose Park firefighter for 16 years and was terminated for allegedly violating the Village’s Residency Ordinance, which requires employees to maintain residency in the Village.
From 2008 Cannici lived primarily in an Orland Park home while retaining a Melrose Park property; in 2013 he rented the Melrose Park home but kept a basement area, mail, utilities, taxes, and access, while sleeping in Orland Park from June 1, 2013 to June 15, 2016.
The Board of Fire and Police Commissioners investigated, issued written charges in June 2016, held a hearing in August 2016, and found Cannici failed to maintain residency during the relevant period; a motion alleging ex parte communications was denied.
Cannici filed a three-count complaint in state court asserting violations of procedural due process and equal protection and seeking administrative review under the Illinois Administrative Review Act; the case was removed to federal court, which dismissed the constitutional claims and remanded the state claim.
Cannici appealed the dismissal of his § 1983 due process and equal protection claims; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural due process: whether Board’s procedures required pre-deprivation process beyond statutory/post-deprivation remedies	Cannici: deprivation occurred through formal, predictable procedure (the Board), so established-state-procedure analysis applies and pre-deprivation process was required	Village: alleged misconduct (e.g., bias/ex parte contact) was random and unauthorized; post-deprivation remedies (Illinois Administrative Review Act) suffice	Court: Conduct was random/unauthorized in nature; post-deprivation remedy under Illinois law adequate — due process claim dismissed
Equal protection (class-of-one) in public employment	Cannici: he was treated differently than similarly situated employees without a rational basis	Village: employment decisions are discretionary; Engquist bars class-of-one claims in public employment	Court: Engquist controls — class-of-one theory inapplicable to individualized public employment decisions; equal protection claim dismissed

Michalowicz v. Village of Bedford Park, 528 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 2008) (post-deprivation administrative review can satisfy due process when misconduct is unpredictable)
Leavell v. Illinois Dep’t of Nat. Res., 600 F.3d 798 (7th Cir. 2010) (distinguishes established procedures from random/unauthorized acts for due process analysis)
Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (class-of-one equal protection doctrine does not apply to public employment decisions)
Forgue v. City of Chicago, 873 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2017) (elements of class-of-one equal protection claim)
Stachowski v. Town of Cicero, 425 F.3d 1075 (7th Cir. 2005) (Illinois Administrative Review Act provides adequate post-deprivation remedy)
LaBella Winnetka, Inc. v. Village of Winnetka, 628 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard of review on Rule 12(b)(6))
Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 2008) (pleading standard: accept well-pleaded facts and draw inferences for plaintiff)