Kevin O'Gorman v. City of Chicago
777 F.3d 885
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- O’Gorman, a former City of Chicago foreman, resigned in 2007 after criminal theft charges and statements by City officials suggesting his termination was inevitable; he was placed on paid leave and the Inspector General publicized the charges.
- Arrow Lumber’s owner pled guilty to defrauding the City; O’Gorman was acquitted of criminal charges in January 2010 and immediately sought reinstatement.
- The City did not reinstate him; O’Gorman alleges he was placed on a Do-Not-Hire List barring future City employment, a list later disclosed publicly in revised form (2011) and containing criteria rendering some individuals ineligible indefinitely.
- O’Gorman sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment: deprivation of property and liberty interests without due process and unequal treatment (selective prosecution/class-of-one) in denial of reinstatement.
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding most claims time-barred or legally deficient for failure to plead a protected property or liberty interest and rejecting the class-of-one claim in public employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of due-process challenge to 2007 forced resignation | O’Gorman contends resignation was coerced and part of a long-running conspiracy; statutes should not bar claim | City: claim accrued in 2007; two-year § 1983 limitations period bars challenge | Dismissed as time-barred; plaintiff waived new continuing-violation theory on appeal |
| Property interest in reinstatement / future City employment | O’Gorman claims contractual/property interest based on CBA and promises by City officials | City: CBA and ordinance negate any right to rehire; officials lacked policymaking authority to bind City | No protected property interest; dismissal affirmed |
| Liberty interest from reputational harm (stigma-plus) | O’Gorman alleges public postings and list placement stigmatized him and foreclosed employment | City: reputational injury alone insufficient; postings date to 2007 and claims are untimely | Liberty claim fails as untimely and lacks adequate stigma-plus showing |
| Equal protection (class-of-one / selective treatment) | O’Gorman alleges he was treated worse than similarly situated applicants | City: public-employment context forecloses class-of-one; selective-prosecution argument undeveloped | Class-of-one inapplicable to public employment; selective-prosecution waived; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for federal complaints)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (accrual rule for § 1983 claims)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agr., 553 U.S. 591 (class-of-one theory in public employment)
- Thulin v. Shopko Stores Operating Co., LLC, 771 F.3d 994 (Seventh Circuit: facts accepted as true on 12(b)(6))
- Moore v. Burge, 771 F.3d 444 (statute of limitations for § 1983 in Illinois)
- Mann v. Vogel, 707 F.3d 872 (liberty interest/stigma-plus doctrine in employment cases)
- Dupuy v. Samuels, 397 F.3d 493 (defamation and liberty interest discussion)
- Chicago Teachers Union v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 662 F.3d 761 (property interests arise from state law and contracts)