Keli Calderone v. City of Chicago, 979 F.3d 1156

Background

Off-duty City of Chicago communications operator Keli Calderone followed and confronted another motorist, was pushed to the ground, and shot the motorist with a lawfully carried handgun; the victim suffered serious injuries.
Calderone was arrested and indicted for attempted murder; the City administratively charged her under personnel rules for discharging a firearm and related misconduct and then terminated her employment.
At a subsequent Illinois bench trial Calderone asserted self-defense and was acquitted; the City later reinstated her and an arbitrator addressed back pay.
Calderone sued the City and two supervisors in federal court, alleging termination in retaliation for exercising her Second Amendment right to armed self-defense, a procedural due process violation, and Monell liability for City policies.
The district court dismissed all claims, concluding (1) individual supervisors were entitled to qualified immunity because the right to discharge a firearm in self-defense was not clearly established, (2) Calderone failed to plead Monell liability, and (3) her due-process claim failed because adequate post-deprivation remedies (grievance/arbitration) existed.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed on the sole grounds that the supervisors are entitled to qualified immunity and that Calderone failed to state a Monell or procedural-due-process claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Calderone was terminated in retaliation for exercising a Second Amendment right to discharge a firearm in self-defense	Calderone: Moore and Heller establish a Second Amendment right to armed self-defense that prohibits termination for using a gun in self-defense	City: Even if a Second Amendment possession right exists, there is no clearly established right to discharge a firearm in these circumstances; termination enforced valid personnel rules	Court: Did not decide the constitutional question; affirmed on qualified immunity grounds — right to discharge a firearm in these facts was not clearly established
Whether supervisors are entitled to qualified immunity for terminating Calderone	Calderone: Moore clearly established right to use a gun in self-defense, so supervisors should be liable	Defendants: No precedent clearly defines when discharge of a firearm is protected; this is a matter of first impression	Held: Qualified immunity applies because the scope of any Second Amendment protection for gun use was not clearly established
Whether the City is liable under Monell for applying personnel rules to terminate Calderone	Calderone: City policies/subsections were applied to punish exercise of Second Amendment rights; City acted with deliberate indifference	City: Personnel rules are facially constitutional and Calderone points to only a single adverse application, not a pattern	Held: Monell claim dismissed — Calderone failed to show an unconstitutional policy or a series of similar violations to establish municipal liability
Whether Calderone's termination violated procedural due process	Calderone: Process was infected by bias and was inadequate; arbitration/grievance scheme excluded direct employee access	City: Calderone had meaningful post-deprivation remedies (union grievance/arbitration) that restored her employment; union represented her	Held: Due-process claim dismissed — available grievance/arbitration procedures are adequate post-deprivation remedies and Calderone offers no evidence they were meaningless or that the union breached its duty

Key Cases Cited

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry weapons for confrontation)
Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (invalidating near-total ban on public handgun possession for self-defense)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity framework protects officials from suit unless rights were clearly established)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may decide qualified immunity by addressing either prong first)
Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (a clearly established right must be defined with sufficient particularity that reasonable officials would know they violate it)
Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an unconstitutional policy, deliberate indifference, and causation)
Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (Monell culpability and causation standards)
City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985) (single incident insufficient for Monell liability absent an unconstitutional policy)