887 F.3d 842
7th Cir.2018Background
- University Park hired Lafayette Linear as Village Manager under a four-year contract that ran through May 2015; the Board extended the contract in October 2014 for one year.
- By May 2015, after a mayoral election and souring relations, the Board moved to remove Linear as Village Manager.
- Linear’s contract provided six months’ severance pay if discharged for any reason except criminality; the Village claimed the post‑May 2015 extension was invalid under Illinois law and refused payment.
- Linear sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the Board violated the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to give him a pre‑termination hearing.
- The district court held the contract extension beyond May 2015 was invalid under Illinois statutes, so Linear lacked a property interest triggering federal due process protection; the court relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding Linear had no federal right to a pre‑termination hearing to retain the office and that his dispute over severance is a state‑law contract matter for state courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Linear had a federal due‑process right to a pre‑termination hearing to keep his Village Manager job | Linear: Due process requires a hearing before removal | Village: It declined to renew; no entitlement to renewal exists | No — no property interest in keeping the job, so no federal hearing required |
| Whether contract/ordinance‑created procedural rights convert to federal due‑process rights | Linear: Contract and ordinance entitle him to a hearing before removal | Village: State‑created procedures do not create federal constitutional rights | No — federal Due Process protects substantive entitlements, not state procedural rights |
| Whether entitlement to severance pay requires a pre‑termination hearing | Linear: Severance clause creates a property interest triggering process | Village: Severance is a contractual remedy; it doesn’t entitle him to retain the office | Severance is a property interest for damages but does not require a pre‑termination hearing to keep the job; remedy lies in state court |
| Whether federal court is the proper forum for resolving the dispute over the contract extension | Linear: Asserted § 1983 federal claim invokes federal jurisdiction | Village: Claim is essentially state‑law contract issue; no diversity jurisdiction | Federal jurisdiction improper for the asserted constitutional claim; state courts are the proper forum for contract dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (establishes property‑interest requirement for due‑process protection)
- Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (distinguishes expectations created by statute/practice from mere hope of reappointment)
- Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (principle that pay does not equate to retention of office)
- Mid‑American Waste Sys., Inc. v. Gary, 49 F.3d 286 (contractual claim against public body remediable in state court)
- Kay v. Board of Education, 547 F.3d 736 (reaffirming state forum for contract‑based property claims)
- Blackout Sealcoating, Inc. v. Peterson, 733 F.3d 688 (similar principle on contractual remedies)
- Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (state procedures do not automatically create federal due‑process rights)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (limitations on bootstrapping state procedural rights into federal claims)
- Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (failure to follow state law does not per se create federal due‑process violation)
- Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541 (same principle)
- Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (federal Constitution does not require states to follow their own procedures in many contexts)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (clarifies scope of federal due‑process review of state procedures)
- Babchuk v. Indiana University Health, Inc., 809 F.3d 966 (Seventh Circuit rejecting state‑procedure‑to‑federal‑right argument)
- Sung Park v. Indiana University School of Dentistry, 692 F.3d 828 (similar Seventh Circuit precedent)
- Weinstein v. University of Illinois, 811 F.2d 1091 (Seventh Circuit case on limits of federalization of state procedural rights)
- Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (name‑clearing hearing recognized where allegations impugn reputation)