Steven Yahnke v. County of Kane, Illinois, 823 F.3d 1066

Steven Yahnke, a long‑time Kane County Deputy Sheriff, was authorized for part‑time secondary employment as Maple Park police chief; Sheriff Perez later revoked that authorization and investigated whether Yahnke continued those duties while on disability.
Undersheriff Ziman reported alleged secondary‑employment activity to Sheriff Perez; Ziman testified Perez responded, “I’m not giving him any time off, I’m firing him. He thinks he’s going to run for Sheriff against me some day.”
Perez filed charges with the Merit Commission alleging dishonesty in OPS interviews and continued secondary employment; a Merit hearing was scheduled but never held, and Perez terminated Yahnke on October 28, 2008.
Yahnke sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation (political affiliation/ambition) and procedural due process (deprivation of property interest without required Merit/hearing procedures).
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on both claims, applying Mt. Healthy burden shifting and requiring Yahnke to prove the Sheriff’s proffered reasons were pretextual; Yahnke appealed.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the due process dismissal (finding Yahnke failed to preserve arbitration/hearing rights), vacated and remanded the First Amendment claim for trial (Ziman’s deposition creates a genuine dispute on motive/pretext).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Yahnke’s termination violated the First Amendment by being motivated by his political affiliation/ambitions	Yahnke contends Perez fired him because Perez feared Yahnke would run against him; Ziman’s testimony is direct evidence of retaliatory motive	Perez contends non‑retaliatory reasons: Yahnke disobeyed orders to stop secondary employment and was dishonest in internal investigations; thus he would have been terminated regardless	Vacated summary judgment and remanded for trial: Ziman’s testimony creates a genuine disputed fact that Perez fired Yahnke for political reasons, defeating summary judgment on causation/pretext under Mt. Healthy/Carter framework
Whether Yahnke was denied procedural due process in his termination	Yahnke argues Merit Commission rules and the CBA entitled him to a Merit hearing or arbitration; he asserts the Sheriff’s representations and conduct prevented him from obtaining a hearing/arbitration	Defendants argue Yahnke waived the Merit hearing and failed to file a grievance specifically challenging the October 28 termination, so he did not perfect arbitration rights	Affirmed for defendants: court held adequate procedures (Merit hearing or arbitration) existed but Yahnke failed to follow/ preserve them; no factual dispute material to due process outcome

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, New Jersey, 136 S. Ct. 1412 (2016) (First Amendment protects political‑affiliation employment decisions)
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) (prohibition on patronage dismissals)
Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980) (political‑affiliation dismissal standards for public employees)
Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) (burden‑shifting framework for causation in First Amendment employment claims)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (standard for showing employer’s proffered reasons are unworthy of credence)
Carter v. Chicago State Univ., 778 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2015) (disjunctive tests for proving pretext: factually baseless OR not actual motivation OR insufficient to motivate action)