Ronald Forgue v. City of Chicago
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20263
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ronald Forgue, a CPD officer from 1986–2015, alleges that from 2012–2015 he was retaliated against and harassed for strictly following CPD rules and filing internal complaints.
- Forgue alleges individualized harms to him (false “sex offender” posters, fake Facebook page, passed over for promotions, transfer to less desirable unit, denial of a retirement identification card) and targeted mistreatment of his three sons (22 stops/arrests/detentions, some allegedly fabricated or abusive).
- He filed complaints with IAD/IPRA and his superiors; CPD general orders and Rules of Conduct require officers to report misconduct.
- On retirement in 2015 Forgue was denied a Retirement Card, which he alleges the CPD customarily issues to retirees and which has practical benefits (carry firearm, benefits, employment prospects).
- Forgue sued the City and 42 officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First Amendment retaliation, equal protection class-of-one, procedural due process, civil conspiracy) plus state claims; the district court dismissed the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation — whether Forgue's internal complaints are protected speech | Forgue: complaints about officers and treatment of his sons were made as a private citizen/father and address matters of public concern | Defendants: complaints were made pursuant to his official duties (CPD rules require reporting), so not protected by Garcetti | Court: Affirmed dismissal — speech was made as a public employee and not protected under Garcetti/Kubiak |
| Equal protection — class-of-one theory | Forgue: he and his sons were intentionally treated differently without rational basis (false complaints, denied Retirement Card, targeted sons) | Defendants: Engquist bars class-of-one claims in public employment contexts because such disputes involve employer discretion | Court: Affirmed dismissal — Engquist forecloses class-of-one claims against public employers or related co-workers |
| Procedural due process — property interest in Retirement Card | Forgue: CPD had a de facto/customary practice of issuing Cards to retirees; denial deprived him of property without process | Defendants: Superintendent has discretionary authority; no protected property interest in a non-mandatory Card | Court: Reversed dismissal — pleadings sufficiently allege an unwritten custom creating a cognizable property interest in the Card, so process claim survives |
| Civil conspiracy to violate constitutional rights | Forgue: defendants conspired to violate his First Amendment and equal protection rights | Defendants: underlying constitutional claims fail, so conspiracy claim fails too | Court: Affirmed dismissal of conspiracy claim — because the underlying First Amendment and equal protection claims were not plausible |
Key Cases Cited
- Kubiak v. City of Chicago, 810 F.3d 476 (7th Cir.) (public-employee speech analysis; duties inquiry)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech pursuant to official duties not protected by First Amendment)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (class-of-one equal protection inapplicable in public-employment context)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (property interests defined by state law/rules for due process purposes)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests arise from existing rules or understandings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard and plausibility review)