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

The Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. 2721, prohibits individuals from knowingly obtaining or disclosing “personal information” from a motor vehicle record. Chicago police officers brought suit against Sun-Times Media, alleging that the publishing company violated the DPPA by obtaining each officer’s birth date, height, weight, hair color, and eye color from the Illinois Secretary of State’s motor vehicle records, and publishing that information in a newspaper article that criticized a homicide investigation lineup in which the officers participated. Sun-Times unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the officers’ complaint, arguing that the published information does not constitute “personal information” within the meaning of the DPPA, or, in the alternative, that the statute’s prohibition on acquiring and disclosing personal information from driving records violates the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and freedom of the press. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. DPPA’s definition of “personal information” extends to the details Sun-Times published here; Sun-Times possesses no constitutional right either to obtain the officers’ personal information from government records or to subsequently publish that unlawfully obtained information. View "Dahlstrom v. Sun-Times Media, LLC" on Justia Law

Wagoner, a paraplegic since a 1996 accident, is incarcerated by IDOC. Five years into his confinement, Wagoner filed a complaint, asserting that IDOC failed to accommodate his disability, citing humiliating toileting arrangements; a cell so small that Wagoner had to move his wheelchair to allow his cellmate to use the toilet; sidewalks that caused him to tip out of his wheelchair; no access to the weight room or the library; problems with his wheelchair; failures to provide other medical supplies; exclusion from job training; and transportation in a vehicle not equipped for wheelchairs. IDOC argued that Wagoner had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, citing the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). Wagoner sought a “Pavey hearing.” The court denied the motion, stating that Wagoner had not established that a dispute of fact existed and could use his response to Defendants’ summary judgment motion to create a record. Wagoner filed a brief opposing summary judgment and a second Pavey motion, with a deposition excerpt detailing IDOC’s threats when he filed grievances and support for his futility claim. The district court granted IDOC summary judgment, refusing to consider the Pavey motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It is better practice to hold a Pavey hearing before considering summary judgment, but there was no reversible error. The court correctly concluded that no material facts were disputed. View "Wagoner v. Ind. Dep't of Corrs." on Justia Law

Jones was charged with a 1998 Chicago shooting and convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree attempted murder. After exhausting state appeals and post-conviction remedies, he sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, claiming: that his convictions were based on insufficient evidence; that he received ineffective assistance from his trial and appellate counsel; and that his rights to due process were violated by the denial of a post-conviction petition. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of relief. The court noted that the primary witness’s testimony was corroborated; that, in light of all of the evidence, Jones was not prejudiced by any of his attorney’s claimed failings; and that, absent a constitutional claim, the district court was correct in denying habeas relief for the failure of the Illinois courts to hold an evidentiary hearing. View "Jones v. Butler" on Justia Law

After his acquittal by a jury on burglary charges, Saunders-El sued members of the Rockford, Illinois police department, alleging that they planted his blood at the crime scene in an attempt to frame him. His complaint included a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim that by fabricating evidence, the officers offended his due process rights, and state law claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment for the officers, reasoning that fabricating evidence does not violate a defendant’s due process rights and cannot support a section 1983 action; such an allegation must instead be brought as a state law claim for malicious prosecution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal on different grounds. A criminal defendant’s due process rights may be violated—actionable by way of 42 U.S.C. 1983—when the evidence against him is fabricated. However, due process is not implicated when, as here, the defendant is released on bond following his arrest and acquitted at trial. The rule cannot be circumvented simply by reframing such an allegation as a Brady claim: alleging that the police officers who supposedly fabricated the evidence failed to reveal their misconduct to the prosecution. View "Saunders-El v. Rohde" on Justia Law

Miller, an African-American male, worked as a cook for Hospitality’s Sparx Restaurant. Miller became assistant kitchen manager and was a satisfactory employee. On October 1, 2010, Miler discovered racially offensive pictures at the kitchen cooler. Miller lodged a complaint. Two employees admitted responsibility. The manager agreed that the posting was a termination-worthy offense, but one offender was given a warning and the other was not disciplined. Soon after Miller’s complaint, supervisors began to criticize Miller’s work performance. Sparx fired Miller on October 23, 2010. The EEOC filed suit on Miller’s behalf under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a), 3(a). Before trial, Sparx had closed and Hospitality had dissolved. The court concluded that successor corporations could be liable. The jury awarded $15,000 in compensatory damages on the retaliation claim. The EEOC sought additional remedies. The district court denied the front-pay request but awarded Miller $43,300.50 in back pay (and interest) plus $6,495.00 to offset impending taxes on the award; enjoined the companies from discharging employees in retaliation for complaints against racially offensive postings; and required them to adopt policies, investigative processes, and annual training consistent with Title VII. The Seventh Circuit affirmed with respect to both successor liability and the equitable remedies. View "Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. N. Star Hospitality, Inc" on Justia Law

For 13 years Sklyarsky worked as a custodian at a Chicago office building, through different employers. In 2010, new supervisors began disciplining Sklyarsky. He complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Illinois Department of Human Rights that the company was treating him unfairly because of his Ukrainian national origin. Sklyarsky was fired in 2013, and after exhausting administrative remedies, filed a pro se lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1981, 2000e-2, e-3, e-5(f).1 During discovery Sklyarsky, an experienced pro se litigant, concluded that the building’s management company had been involved in the discrimination and sought leave to join it as a defendant. Judge Kocoras denied that motion, telling Sklyarsky that Means-Knaus had “nothing to do with the employment contract” and that, if he wanted to sue MeansKnaus, he would have to file a separate action. Sklyarsky did that. Judge Gottschall, assigned to the new suit against Means-Knaus, screened Sklyarsky’s pro se complaint and dismissed it sua sponte, 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), finding that the doctrine of claim preclusion foreclosed a separate suit. Judge Kocoras refused to reconsider and entered summary judgment in favor of the employer. In consolidated appeals, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that any procedural missteps were harmless. View "Sklyarsky v. Harvard Maint., Inc." on Justia Law

A woman of Sudanese extraction, the plaintiff worked in Jeffboat’s shipyard in Jeffersonville, Indiana as a welder from 2006 until she was laid off in 2011. She had been u a welder first class, doing the most difficult and dangerous jobs, such as overhead welding and welding in confined spaces. In a two-week period in June 2011, the plaintiff, who had on 12 previous occasions sought first aid for work-related injuries, experienced two more such incidents, becoming dizzy and nauseous while welding in confined spaces. Jeffboat demoted her to welder third class, reducing her pay from $21.10 per hour to $15.69 per hour. The plaintiff claimed that the company demoted her in retaliation for her having complained to the EEOC the previous February that the company was discriminating against her because of her sex and national origin. She was subsequently laid off, but the layoff was part of a general reduction in force based on seniority and a few months later she was notified that she was being recalled. She failed to reply within the deadline and never returned to work. Her discrimination claims were rejected. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting plaintiff's lack of evidence View "Ani-Deng v. Jeffboat" on Justia Law

Champaign County Detectives executed a search warrant at the Olson home, looking for stolen items. They found nothing. Although they had no reason to believe that the Vinsons were involved in the purported theft and possessed no warrant for the Vinson property, they met a Vermillion County Deputy to search the Vinsons’ Vermillion County home. Vinson is the Olsons’s daughter. The plainclothes officers arrived in unmarked cars as the Vinsons’ 14-year-old daughter, C., was checking the mailbox. C., home with her nine-year-old brother, was alarmed. She went inside, locked the door, and called her mother, who was in a high-risk pregnancy, stating that a man was peering through a window. The man then told C. that he was a police officer and “had to conduct a search.” C. went upstairs with her brother, and, through a window, watched the offices search the attached garage and curtilage. The officers found nothing and left. The Vinsons sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and for common law trespass, naming the Counties as responsible for payment under the Illinois Tort Immunity Act. The district court rejected all claims. The Seventh Circuit reversed. An average citizen might call the police based on the behavior described. That there was no forced entry and nothing was seized is irrelevant a Fourth Amendment claim. View "Vinson v. Vermilion Cnty, Ill." on Justia Law

Bruce’s high-school boyfriend told a school official that Bruce had attempted to kill herself. The official contacted police. Officer Harris went to the home where Bruce was staying and detained her until a sheriff’s deputy, Guernsey, arrived and took Bruce, against her will, to a hospital where she was subjected to a mental health examination. Guernsey said that he had a copy of a physician’s medical examination, but no doctor had examined Bruce, and wrote that Bruce told him that she was thinking of suicide, but Bruce denies making that statement. Harris and Guernsey took no account of her father’s statements contradicting the report and her calm demeanor. Bruce filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court held that probable cause for the seizure was apparent on the face of Bruce’s complaint and that Guernsey had arguable probable cause and thus was entitled to qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in favor of Harris, but reversed and remanded as to Guernsey, who overstepped the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment in taking Bruce to the hospital and making false statements that resulted in a more prolonged seizure. View "Bruce v. Guernsey" on Justia Law

O’Gorman worked for Chicago from 1996-2007, as a carpenter and later as a General Foreman, placing city orders with Arrow Lumber, owned by Beal. After an investigation following reports from an Arrow employee, O’Gorman was arrested and charged with theft of city property and violations of City Personnel Rules. The city also pursued a civil case under the Illinois Whistleblower Act and the Chicago False Claims Act, which remains pending. The city issued a press release announcing the charges that he had diverted $50,000 in goods for his own use and tried to cover the theft. Beal pled guilty. O’Gorman’s complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleged that the investigation improperly focused on O’Gorman and protected Arrow and Beal for political reasons and that Beal covered up Arrow’s fraud; that the Human Resources Director informed a union representative that if O’Gorman did not resign he would be fired and that any hearing would be a sham; and that supervisors told him that if he resigned, he would be reinstated once he was acquitted. O’Gorman resigned, was acquitted of all criminal charges, and unsuccessfully requested reinstatement. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding the termination claims untimely and that there is no property interest in rehiring. View "O'Gorman v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law