Larry Davis v. Kris Ockomon
668 F.3d 473
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Davis, appointed as Senior Humane Officer (SHO) in 1988, was terminated for opposing mayor Kris Ockomon's campaign.
- SHO is the department head of the City’s animal shelter and animal control operations, with policy enforcement duties.
- Davis held job security under prior mayors but feared political termination; after a new Republican mayor took office, Davis remained in place.
- District court held the SHO position to be policymaking based on an official job description created by a consultant and updated periodically.
- The district court relied on the job description to grant summary judgment; on appeal, Davis argued the description was unreliable.
- The court ultimately focused on city ordinances defining SHO duties, not the job description, to determine policymaking authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the SHO a position subject to political termination? | Davis argues SHO is not a policymaker and not subject to patronage dismissal. | City contends SHO has policymaking duties justifying political dismissal. | Yes; ordinances vest policymaking authority in the SHO, making political loyalty a valid qualification. |
| Whether the official job description reliably determines policymaking status? | Davis claims the job description is unreliable and controls the analysis. | City may rely on ordinances; job description may supplement but not control. | Ordinances govern; the job description is not determinative where conflicting statutes exist. |
| Does the discretion granted to the SHO constitute political discretion rather than professional judgment? | Discretion is professional/technical and not inherently political. | Discretion to promulgate regulations and set policy is inherently political. | SHO duties include promulgating regulations and policy with broad goals, making political discretion applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. Blagojevich, 425 F.3d 357 (7th Cir. 2005) (official job descriptions may determine policymaking status when reliable)
- Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (U.S. 1980) (abandoned fixed labels in favor of functional analysis for patronage)
- Kiddy-Brown v. Blagojevich, 408 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 2005) (policymaking vs. confidential employee framework)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1976) (loyalty as a criterion for public employment in some cases)
- Tomczak v. City of Chicago, 765 F.2d 633 (7th Cir. 1985) (policy vs. practical service considerations in elections)
- Pleva v. Norquist, 195 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. 1999) (explicitly addresses reliance on statutes/ordinances over job descriptions)
- Walsh v. Heilmann, 472 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 2006) (confirms examining ordinances to determine duties of office)
- Rissman v. Rissman, 213 F.3d 381 (7th Cir. 2000) (litigation risk and rationalization in administrative action)