Steven Cromwell v. City of Momence
713 F.3d 361
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Cromwell, a police lieutenant in Momence, Illinois, was terminated after an alcohol-related misconduct incident and related investigations.
- Cromwell claimed a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment based on Momence Police Department Rules and Regulations.
- Regulations provide probation for 12–18 months, with dismissal allowed for any reason during probation, but are silent on nonprobationary employees.
- Cromwell argued silence implied tenure for nonprobationary officers; he sought due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- District court dismissed, holding regulations did not create a protectable property interest; Cromwell appealed.
- Court held Illinois employment is at-will absent a clear state-law promise of continued employment; mere probation language and discipline provisions do not create a property right.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the Momence regulations create a property interest in continued employment? | Cromwell asserts probation language implies tenure for nonprobationaries. | Regulations do not contain a clear, substantive promise of continued employment. | No property interest; regulations lack clear promise. |
| Is a contractual entitlement to disciplinary procedures sufficient to create a property right in employment? | Procedural rights imply a substantive entitlement to continued employment. | Procedures alone do not create a property right in employment. | No; procedures do not establish a protected property interest. |
| Does the absence of a disclaimer in the regulations affect the inference of a property right? | Disclaimers are not necessary if promises exist. | No promises were made; silence cannot create rights. | No implied promise from silence; no property interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Border v. City of Crystal Lake, 75 F.3d 270 (7th Cir. 1996) (handbook language must be clear to create a property right)
- Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hosp. Ctr., 505 N.E.2d 314 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (state-law predicates require a clear promise)
- Campbell v. City of Champaign, 940 F.2d 1111 (7th Cir. 1991) (silence cannot imply contractual obligation)
- Omosegbon v. Wells, 335 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2003) (employment terms require substantive predicate to create property)
- Robinson v. Ada S. McKinley Cmty. Servs., Inc., 19 F.3d 359 (7th Cir. 1994) (clear language plus probation outcome can create tenure)
- Mitchell v. Jewell Food Stores, 568 N.E.2d 827 (Ill. 1990) (manual reserving power to discharge with just cause affects tenure)
- Moss v. Martin, 473 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2007) (Illinois at-will presumption and entitlement standards)
- Cain v. Larson, 879 F.2d 1424 (7th Cir. 1989) (contract rights require substantive predicates, not mere procedures)
- Garrido v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff’s Merit Bd., 811 N.E.2d 312 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (public employee tenure requires clear promises beyond general language)