Opp v. Office of State's Attorney of Cook County, 630 F.3d 616

Three former Assistant State's Attorneys (Opp, Barrett, Cahnmann) sued under the ADEA for unlawful termination by Cook County SA's Office.
District court dismissed, holding appellants are policymakers excluded from ADEA coverage.
Opp, Barrett, and Cahnmann allege age-based termination during February 2007 budget reductions; Opp and Barrett were in the Sixth and Fourth Districts, respectively; Cahnmann was born in 1946.
Illinois law authorizes the State's Attorney to set policy and appoint assistants who are surrogates of the State's Attorney; ASAs can bind the government in court and may dismiss/prosecute cases.
Appellants contend they are employees covered by ADEA, not policymaking appointees; appellees contend they are policymaking level appointees under 29 U.S.C. § 630(f).
Question presented: Are ASAs Appointees on the policymaking level exempt from ADEA coverage as a matter of law?

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are ASAs appointees on the policymaking level under ADEA?	Opp/Barrett/Cahnmann contend they are employees covered by ADEA.	Cook County argues ASAs are policymaking appointees excluded from ADEA.	Yes; ASAs are policymakers and excluded from ADEA coverage.
Does the Illinois appointment framework make ASAs appointees by the State's Attorney?	Appellants were hired by the office, not by the State's Attorney, so not appointed.	ASAs are appointed by the State's Attorney under 55 ILCS 5/4-2003; re-appointed by new SA upon swearing in.	Appellants were appointed by the State's Attorney; appointment status supports policymaker designation.

Americanos v. Carter, 74 F.3d 138 (7th Cir. 1996) (test for policymaker input mirrors Elrod/Branti framework)
Heideman v. Wirsing, 7 F.3d 659 (7th Cir. 1993) (policymaking-level inquiry tied to preserving impartial administration)
Tomczak v. City of Chicago, 765 F.2d 633 (7th Cir. 1985) (examines powers inherent in office, not duties of occupant)
Vargas-Harrison v. Racine Unified Sch. Dist., 272 F.3d 964 (7th Cir. 2001) (duties defined by law can establish policymaking status)
Pleva v. Norquist, 195 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. 1999) (clear statutory descriptions can support policymaking designation)
Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980) (political patronage framework for public employment decisions)
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (political loyalty is a basis for firing under patronage doctrine)
Soderbeck v. Burnett County, 752 F.2d 285 (7th Cir. 1985) (jury may decide policymaker status when duties are uncertain)
Matlock v. Barnes, 932 F.2d 658 (7th Cir. 1991) (instances where duties of a position blur policymaking boundaries)
McGrath v. Gillis, 44 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 1995) (Assistant State's Attorneys as surrogates with policymaking power)
Livas v. Petka, 711 F.2d 798 (7th Cir. 1983) (ASAs can wield policy-making authority in carrying out duties)