Palka v. City of Chicago
662 F.3d 428
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Peter Palka was terminated from the Chicago Police Academy in 2007 for lying/evasion and firearms deficiencies; he alleges Polish ethnicity as motive.
- Tadeusz Palka, Peter’s father, pressured for reinstatement; Tobias refused and a county investigation ensued after a suspicious call about Tobias’s children.
- Tadeusz retired early from the Sheriff’s Department before a Merit Board hearing; he later sued multiple officials under §1983 in Palka I.
- Peter then sued the City and Tobias under §1983 for discriminatory termination; City summary-judgment granted, Tobias’s claim survived.
- A separate Title VII action by the Palkas against the City and County was dismissed on res judicata grounds, based on the prior §1983 proceedings.
- The Seventh Circuit consolidated the appeals, upholding the judgments and applying traditional res judicata and Monell standards to the City’s liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City can be liable under Monell for Tobias’s alleged discrimination | Palka argues City policy/custom or final policymaker authority. | City had no final policymaker or policy causing discrimination. | No Monell liability; no final policymaker or policy proved. |
| Whether a claim of municipal inaction can support §1983 liability | Palka asserts inaction constitutes a City policy of discrimination. | Inaction theory not established; not supported by evidence. | Insufficient evidence of a formal policy or persistent pattern to sustain Monell based on inaction. |
| Whether Tobias’s dismissal without prejudice barred appellate review | Appeal should cover interlocutory order barring reinstatement. | Voluntary dismissal moots review of related interlocutory orders. | Appeal limited; review of City’s merits dismissal upheld; reinstatement order moot. |
| Whether Title VII claims are barred by res judicata | Claims arising from same termination events should be allowed. | Prior final judgments preclude duplicative Title VII claims. | Res judicata applies; Title VII claims barred. |
| Whether there was a valid basis to suspend or stay §1983 actions awaiting EEOC letters | Delay in EEOC rights should not bar later Title VII claims. | Traditional preservation options available; res judicata applies regardless. | Not persuasive; Title VII claims were properly barred by res judicata. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (establishes municipal liability for official policy or custom; final policymaker rule)
- Wragg v. Village of Thornton, 604 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2010) (defines policy/custom and final policymaker requirements for Monell)
- Darchak v. City of Chicago, 580 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2009) (ratification theory requires shared unconstitutional motivation by final policymaker)
- Rasche v. Village of Beecher, 336 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2003) (discussion of final policymaker and related liability standards)
- Vodak v. City of Chicago, 639 F.3d 738 (7th Cir. 2011) (non-final policymaker authority; limits on Monell liability)
- Herrmann v. Cencom Cable Assocs., 999 F.2d 223 (7th Cir. 1993) (Title VII res judicata and standard application in the Seventh Circuit)
- Czarniecki v. City of Chicago, 633 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2011) (affirmed dismissal of discrimination claims against City based on prior suits)
- Gernetzke v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1, 274 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2001) (final policymaker/ratification considerations in Monell analysis)
- Brzostowski v. Laidlaw Waste Sys., Inc., 49 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 1995) (preservation strategies for Title VII and §1983 actions)
- Parker v. Freightliner Corp., 940 F.2d 1019 (7th Cir. 1991) (stay/voluntary dismissal mechanics and appealability)