Matthew Bonnstetter v. City of Chicago
811 F.3d 969
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Eight applicants for Chicago Police Department officer positions were disqualified at various stages (psych exam, polygraph, age limit, education) after passing a written exam and receiving lottery numbers.
- Applicants sued the City (and CAPFS in one case) alleging violations of the City’s 2011 Hiring Plan, the Shakman consent decree (prohibiting political patronage in hiring), and other claims; appeals were limited to the Shakman claims.
- District courts dismissed the complaints under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a Shakman claim; some claims were also held time-barred or precluded by res judicata.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviewed dismissals de novo, accepting pleaded facts and assessing whether the complaints alleged political discrimination as required by Shakman.
- Court found most plaintiffs alleged no facts showing political affiliation, beliefs, activity, or that the City acted because of such factors; several claims were filed after the 180-day limitations period.
- Slowik’s complaint alleged psych-exam questions about military service that might implicate political views, but he failed to plead that the City knew his answers or acted because of his views; his claim was also barred by res judicata due to a prior Illinois state-court dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaints state a Shakman violation (political discrimination) | Applicants: City used a non-transparent, manipulable process to eliminate them (Shakman claim) | City: Complaints lack allegations that adverse actions were caused by political affiliation, support, or activity | Dismissed — plaintiffs failed to plead political motive/features required by Shakman |
| Timeliness of Shakman claims | Applicants: claims are timely (implicit) | City: Shakman claims are subject to a 180-day limitations period from notice of adverse action | Dismissed as time-barred for Bonnstetter, Gutierrez, Sauseda, Fishwick — filed after 180 days |
| Res judicata effect of prior state-court dismissal (Slowik) | Slowik: exceptions apply (acquiescence; lack of state jurisdiction) | City: Prior dismissal with prejudice bars relitigation; no acquiescence; state court had jurisdiction | Dismissed — res judicata applies; exceptions rejected |
| Failure to oppose CAPFS dismissal on appeal | Applicants: (did not contest on appeal) | CAPFS: dismissal should stand | Dismissed — appellate waiver for CAPFS claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Shakman v. Democratic Org., 569 F. Supp. 177 (N.D. Ill. 1983) (consent decree prohibiting political patronage in most municipal hiring)
- Smith v. City of Chicago, 769 F.2d 408 (7th Cir. 1985) (Shakman claims treated like political-discrimination claims; 180-day limitations discussed)
- Shanahan v. City of Chicago, 82 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 1996) (political motive required for Shakman violation)
- Cusson-Cobb v. O’Lessker, 953 F.2d 1079 (7th Cir. 1992) (Shakman requires proof of political factor causing action)
- Walczak v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 739 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2014) (state-court administrative review must include federal civil-rights claims; acquiescence exception explained)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1980) (full faith and credit/res judicata principles for federal courts)
- O’Sullivan v. City of Chicago, 396 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2005) (background on Shakman litigation)