Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The union represents housekeepers at a hotel owned by the village. After the union staged a mock funeral procession on the premises, police blocked efforts to stage a second protest on August 31, 2009. After the union filed suit, it was denied permission to distribute pamphlets at the entry to the hotel (November incident). The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the village. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the record clearly indicated that the union had dropped its claims with respect to the August 31 demonstration. At the time of the summary judgment motion, the union had not attempted to file a supplementary pleading to cover the November incident.

Former captains from the Illinois Department of Corrections sued state and union officials, alleging that the defendants unlawfully punished them for seeking to organize with a rival union. The district court entered summary for the defendants, including a decision that the governor was protected by immunity. The governor's line-item veto of funding for captains' positions was legislative in nature and, therefore, protected by immunity and the plaintiffs failed to tie the governor to any allegedly-retaliatory actions before or after the veto. The decision to eliminate the middle management position at issue was a policy decision, unlike hiring or firing a particular individual, regardless of the subsequent creation of a new, similar position. The captains did not show how deposing the governor or more extensive deposition of the deputy chief of staff would lead to relevant evidence on the immunity issue. That two unions were competing to represent the captains did not establish a conspiracy between one of the unions and the administration with respect to determining the seniority of captains who took positions as corrections officers after their positions were eliminated.

The defendant, sentenced to 63 months as felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922, argued that the district court erred in applying the high end of the guidelines range without meaningfully considering his personal history and characteristics under 18 U.S.C. 3553, specifically, care he gave to his father before the father's 2007 death. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Defendant's history as a caregiver was worthy of note, but the court properly also considered the defendant's extensive criminal history and the reckless nature of the drunken shooting spree that led to his arrest.