*1 the Commission decided the crucial factual First, opinion represents May Second, agency. question there causation. arbitrator final decision the causation is- question testimony no that can be found that on cross- “[m]edical discharge caused Crot’s sue—whether basically agrument examinаtion was in [sic] essential to Commission’s stroke —was could a that Petitioner have sustained compensation bene- deny Crot decision to any physical stroke with or without or emo- Third, fair clearly had a full and fits. Crot stress. The finds: That tional Arbitrator litigate before the Commis- opportunity to Petitioner failed tо sustain his burden of discharge caused his claim that the sion his proof present ill-being that his condition of pro- rules of stroke. As Commission’s Thus, employment.” related to his Id. demonstrate, virtually all Crot had cedure the IIC decision satisfies the condition that disposal. judicial trial at his the tools of sought in precluded the issue to be present re- argument that the IIC deci- action be identical to the issue final Crot’s condition satisfy Bay’s previous Consequently, fourth case. sion fails to solved (i.e. agency the issue before the Ray the dictates of Elliott and are satis- posed in the court, then, one of the issues properly identical to es- fied. The district action) merit. is also without Crot present topped relitigating the causation Crot from district argued argues issue this action. —as present action the issue court—that the issue before the IIC is factual while III. Appellant’s Brief at purely legal. reasons, foregoing For the we Affirm statutory lan- 11. Crot believes of the district court. compensation governing worker’s guage awards, injury] arose out of and that “[the employment,” his see Ill.
in the course of
Rev.Stat., 48, 138.2, legal ch. raises a if present his claim that
question while merely implies
discharge caused his stroke
a factual one. properly rejected
The district court Crot, F.Supp. at argument. See Crot’s al., AURIEMMA, et John complaint in the instant ac- 1257. In his Plaintiffs-Appellants, tion, that “as a direct and Crot asserted con- proximate result of the defendants’ duct, the Plaintiff suffered a stroke Defendant, RICE, Fred ” (quoting November 1981.... 1133). Complaint presented Crot at in his claim for worker’s same factual issue Defendant-Appellee. Chicago, As Arbitrator Ze- compensation benefits. No. 90-3142. January noted her nia S. Goodman decision, contention that “It is Petitioner’s Appeals, States Court of United discharge was a causative the stress of his Circuit. Seventh stroke he later sustained.” factor Argued Sept. Arbitrator, De- and Decision of See Notice Regardless Appendix at A-3. fendants’ 28, 1992. Decided Feb. the alle- differences between the semantic lan- complaint and the gations of Crot’s compensation stat-
guage of the worker’s
ute, no doubt that both actions we have adjudicator to de-
necessarily required the firing caused his whether Crot’s
termine plain language of
stroke. From the Arbi- decision, agree we
trator Goodman’s *2 Callahan, (argued), L. LeFevour
Mark Oak McGlynn, & Lakoma Fitzpatrick, Gubbins, & Gubbins Brook, Ill., L. John Ill., plaintiffs-ap- Associates, Chicago, pellants. (ar- Corp. Counsel Dobrer, Asst. Jеan Gessler, Flynn, Piers, J. Matthew
gued), Socol, Phillip H. Fleischmann, Hughes & also, F.2d Counsel, Corp. Lawrence Asst. Snelling, Counsel, Henry F. Corp. Rosenthal, Deputy Montgomery Montgomery, Field, D. James Neal, D. Langdon Associates, L. Earl & Williams, & Associ- Neal Neal, D. Shelli Skokie, Rains, Ill., D. Rainell ates, Chicago, Counsel, Welsh, Corp. Asst. Ill., Kelly R. Ill., for defendant- Div., Chicago, Appeals appellee. EASTERBROOK, and RIPPLE
Before Judges. MANION, Circuit EASTERBROOK, Judge. Circuit Police Superintendent becoming After the senior Rice reshuffled Chicago, Fred Thirteen black Department. ranks of offi- no black promoted were officers demoted; officers nine white were cers . demoted; twenty-five promoted and werе promoted were Hispanic officers three abolished. demoted; were positions six one (Decem- time at the reason no Rice offered felt more he 1983) than that other ber of- newly promoted “comfortable” since other ficers, none his “accepted who executives wanted de- Eighteen of the style.” management suit under this filed officers moted Rice and 1983,contending that U.S.C. § politics their race Chicago held City of Constitu- violation against them tion. have become Rice against The claims City. against those from
separated not held that judge The district against Proceedings immunity. entitled appeal Rice’s stayed while City were by the then panel and by a considered that Rice We held sitting in banc. court some but against immunity entitled (think Rice, city manager powers mod- tive claims. Auriemma all el, government). parliamentary banc), related Cir.1990) (in cert. de (7th — may Purely executive officials -, nied, by delegation (express to set Supreme While L.Ed.2d *3 custom) legislature implied by when the request for considering Rice’s Court Chicago, v. is silent. See Jones 787 F.2d up the offi review, judge took the district v. 200, (7th Cir.1986); Strauss Chica- 204 does City, the which against cers’ claims 765, (7th Cir.1985). Even go, 760 F.2d 770 prevailed City The immunity. possess not action in the teеth of executive (N.D.Ill. F.Supp. 465 747 the board. across policy. It not be called would could only 1990). Municipalities are answerable long say for a language twist the to that they policies; their own decisions for policy public use Chicago’s time was to the vicariously liable for constitu are not political friends and employment to reward v. New Monell agents. of their tional torts enemies, though state punish political even Services, 436 Department Social York of required selection for and local law merit 2018, 611 658, 56 L.Ed.2d 98 U.S. practice by A many positions. undertaken (1978). judge’s The district conclusion pоwer and suffered the the executive “policy” other than implemented no legislative power may said to reflect a City. The victory for the ensured his own legislation. force of custom the court entered district 54(b), Fortunately contem we need not Fed.R.Civ.P. City’s favor under of these middle plate prоper the treatment appealed. the officers police applicable to the cases. Ordinances means to be a what it We must decide unequivocally racial and department ban Monell under municipal “policymaker” Municipal of Code political discrimination. Dallas, v. line, especially Jett in its cases 25.1-8, (effective 1976- Chicago 25.1-9 §§ 2702, 701, L.Ed.2d 105 109 S.Ct. Board, v. 1988). See Resman Personnel Louis v. 485 St. (1989), 598 922, 439, 441, 919, 52 Ill.App.3d 96 Ill.Dec. 915, 107 112, 99 108 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d U.S. Dist.1981) (munici (1st 122 N.E.2d Cincinnati, (1988), and Pembaur v. depart applies police pal personnel code L.Ed.2d ment). Chicago under has been Since polar approaches, Therе are two of injunction requiring the elimination an cases. support these each with some positions for most political considerations the equates “policy” with One held). plaintiffs (including the ones the The holder of jurisdiction. of a power Organization Democratic Shakman general rules of power to establish ultimate 1315, 1356-59 County, F.Supp. Cook Usually “policymaker.” applicability is the of 1972 con (N.D.Ill.1979) (reprinting text council; events, city at all means the this decree). do contend Plaintiffs not sent nev- executive are purely holders departures from condoned the Council opposing аpproach The “policymakers.” er Quite contrary, plaintiffs the these rules. ability take equates “policy” with the senior ranks alleged the norm for jurisdic- in the name final action They selection. police has been merit is, power. per-A executive tion —that show that this benchmark to seek to use city to a to commit son authorized must have in December 1983 the decisions necessarily policy; sets its course of action “If not politics or on race. been based action is view, policy. this plaintiffs’ merit, bat has been what?” pinning strategy of course intermediate cry. There arе this excludes tle Yet governments legislative decision and local on a possibilities. State their demotions acqui legislature’s pattern separated City, or on need not follow by the Ris pattern decisions in the national Constitution. escence in powers theory, (7th plaintiffs’ own Thompson, 930 F.2d On the ser v. 551-52 executive. (The com Observer, stops with Fred Rice. Chicago Inc. v. Chica Cir.1991); buck his deci Rice cleared (7th Cir.1991). alleges that plaint Exec go, Washington, then the Harold sions with legisla- sometimes exercise utive officials personal; acts is Liability unauthorized immaterial; mayor is mayor, this but liable, tells municipality Monell hold the in Chi- executive, legislative, official an implement rath- us, must agent’s action an Unless government.) cago’s system of policy. government’s frustrate the er than mu- decision establishes entirely executive final, plain- it is because appeals other courts Decisions must lose. tiffs varying that there so subject are on this A series of canvassing them. point in little way imply this is to the issue in To state Supreme Court from the opinions fractured say mean to can it For what the answer. every position. to almost gave comfort is a liability” unless there “no vicarious coming may be many voices period implemen between creation distinction *4 Jett, in majority A of the Court close. to a exclusively city acts Any of rules? tation 2722-24, 736-38, at 109 S.Ct. at 491 U.S. just for city is name through agents; the a opin- plurality Justice O’Connor’s adopted enough to If it persons. were complex of a governing stan- the Praprotnik as in ion final agent act was the the whose point to in Pra- concluded Justice O’Connor dard. case, we would particular one a identity government’s a the protnik in the liability. Action course vicarious law, 485 a of local question policymaker liability. of vicarious duty is the basis one’s 923-25, 123-25, and she at at 108 S.Ct. U.S. a apex the agent is a particular That law “will state or local was confident “final” but bureaucracy makes decision or to some official always direct a court “finality” forge a link between does not making responsibility that has the body President, offi a cabinet The “policy”. a any given area of setting policy in or final cer, makes the decision delegate or his 125, Id. at business.” government’s local laws of the without implementation ex- Unfortunately these at 924. 108 S.Ct. exe President fact that the changing the to we turn not tell us whether do pressions may law. One than cutes makes rather in search for ultimate law a local Monell, Larry footing see doubt the opinion Nothing her power. or executive Sykes, Municipal Lia Alan O. Kramer & answer is subject, but the explicit on the Eco Legal A bility 1983: Under § as holding case as well of the implicit 249; Pe Sup.Ct.Rev. Analysis, 1987 nomic 1, footnote, 124 n. 108 S.Ct. at 485 U.S. in a Schuck, Liability Under Municipal H. ter that the possibility rejecting the at n. 924 Tort Lessons 1983: Some Section from by determin- may identified policymaker be Theory, 77 Geo. Organization Law and city’s authority ing wields final who is not to (1989), decision but that L.J. power structure.” “actual by calling the chief bureau sabotaged be case, a out of our arose like action particular a signs off on crat who with to a demotion that amounted transfer for that action. city’s “policymaker” bureaucracy. The Director in a as as has a well “Policy” normative Agency of St. Development Community agent an That positive dimension. a to less desir Praprotnik a shuffled Lоuis pos something tells us the municipality did commis city’s service The civil job. able action; to side, public “is” be itive the transfer to review sion declined to city’s policy pay we also need a loss of discern the not entail it did cause He its action. Unless “ought” of sued under Praprotnik know the grade. § held gоvern appeals, tomor which ought today’s in the court decision won Community Devel or a custom Director of the under a law row’s case authori carry final law, Agency, said wielded opment it cannot be who the force transfer, the mu Praprotnik’s Even an act municipality’s policy. ty over out thе Supreme Court may policymaker. government’s rules in the teeth au city charter noting that the action, Telephone disagreed, & see state Home to re commission civil U.S. service Angeles, 227 thorized Telegraph Co. Los personnel matters. policy on 314-15, set L.Ed. 287-89, view 33 S.Ct. (opinion 129-30, 108 at at Virginia, pаrte also Ex decision O’Connor,J.). Leaving the final (1880). of 346-47, 25 L.Ed. 100 U.S.
4Q1 ‘ not make him policy- to the Director did a I concur in of the court. maker,” held, equally the Court but “is The complexities rights of civil litigation presumption consistent with a that the sub- quite naturally produce a yearning for a faithfully attempting ordinates are tо com- concise or bright-line definition rule with ply policies with the that are supposed to respect to identity of a policy- guide them.” at S.Ct. at 927. Today, however, maker. governmen- local tal many structures take shapes, and the plaintiffs and the other Auriemma demands of contemporаry municipal gover- Praprotnik govern maintain that does not nance probably expand because the civil will service St. rather commission nominally possibilities Louis was at contract the least end of the in the foreseeable many personnel chain and reviewed deci future. Consequently, guidelines set sions, Praprotnik albeit not all. Thus does forth Supreme Court in Jett v. Dal- possibility exclude the that the Court las Independent District, School tippy-top would treat the executive official 701, 737, 2702, 2723, 105 L.Ed.2d “policymaker.” as a Neither does Pra (1989), precise are as as we have a protnik give embrace or comfort to that right expect point at this in the country’s position. given, For the reasons we have *5 development. regard We must the matter municipal Monell’s to limit liability effort as one of state law and review “the rele- under carry 1983 to acts that out local § legal materials, vаnt including state and policy distinguishing entails ‘ positive law, local well as as “custom or from executive functions—a distinction al ” usage” having the force of law.’ ways present principle though even blur (quoting St. Louis v. ry in practice. “[Responsibility for mak n. 924 n. ing setting law or policy” objective —the (1988)) L.Ed.2d 107 (emphasis addеd). We Praprotnik under through of our search are told how to identify the policymaker. local law—is authority adopt rules for that, Beyond the matter must necessarily government. the conduct of Authority to be handled in case adjudication. case make a final decision imply need not au thority to rules. In Chicago establish it The court’s estimation of the situation Superintendent does not. The Police before isus no doubt correct. Mr. Rice’s Chicago had no to countermand the actions cannot be poli- characterized as the regulating statutes operation cy Chicago. authоrity His department. chief “complete has au was to department administer the in ac- thority department to administer the in a cordance with state law ordi- manner consistent ordinances case, nances. Under the facts of this he city, state, laws and the rules can claim no other authority sоurce of regulations police board.” Mu speculate whether, we need not as (1988; Code 11-5 § renumbered facts, usage other a custom having 2-84-040). 1990 edition as sys If “faults § him, might make under the force of temic nature” can policy, amount to local guidance Jett, a policymaker. see Mulcahy, Sims v. (7th Cir.1990) (quoting from Strauss
Jones), plaintiffs’ complaint own defeats by alleging
their claim departed that Rice practice If,
from a of merit selection. staff,
the course selecting senior
discriminated poli on account of race and
tics, implemented rather violated Chicago. On Rice falls
responsibility for his deeds.
Affirmed.
RIPPLE, Judge, concurring. Circuit