The H onorab le Ru ben C ast il lo, o f t h e N orther n D is tr ic t  ofI l l i noi s , i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 1929 K EN NE T H K IDWELL, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . J OS EP H S. E IS ENHAUER, et al., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 09 CV 2179

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 6, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AY 22, 2012

Befo re M ANI ON an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Ju dg es, a nd C AST IL LO, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  M A NI ON, Cir cu i tJudge

. Overthe cour se ofsi x m onths, Appel l an t Kenne thKi dwel l, a s i xt ee n- y ear ve te r ano fthe Danvill e, I l l i noi s pol i ce depar tm ent, publi cl y c ri ti ci zed seve ra ldepartm entalo fficia l s a t tw o pol i ce o ffi cer s’2 N o. 11

- 1929

un i o n mee t i ng s . R o ughly d ur i ngtha ts a me t i me pe r i o d, K i dw el lal so com m i tte d seve ra lvi ol ati ons ofdep ar tm en ta lpo l i cy an d was puni sh ed ac co r di ng l y wi th, am ong othe r thi n gs , a w ri tte n re pri m and and a twod ay su sp e n s io n . Th en, after Kid w ellf ail ed to clear a fitn es s-fo r-d u ty ev alu at ion, th e d ep ar tm en t o fficia ls filed t er m i nati on char ges ag ai nst hi m . The m att erwas as si g ne d t o a rbi tr at i o n whe r e he was s us pen ded but n ot te rm in at ed

. U ltim at ely , K id w ell b ro u gh t th is s u it und er§ 1983 ag ai n st D anvi l l e’ s m ayo r and seve ra ldepartm ent o ffi ci al s, al l eging tha t the act i ons tak en ag ai nst hi m were i n re tal i ati on f orthe cri ti c ism s he voi ced at th e t w o u n ion m ee tin gs . T h e d ist ric t c ou rth eld that K i dw el lco uld notm ake o ut a pri m a f aci e ca se f or re tal i ati on and there f or e gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm en t i n f av o r of the de fen dan ts
. W e ag r ee wi ththe d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s , a n d th u s a ffi r m.

I. K enneth Kidw el lhas been a pol i ce offi cerf orthe ci ty ofDanvi l l e, I l l i noi s s i nce Decem ber1 992. In 199 6 he w as prom ote d to ser gea nt, a r an k that he st i l lhol ds. A s a sergean t, K idw ellw as a secon d -shift patrol sup e r visor. I n additi on, o n J anuary1, 20 06, Kidw el lwas ass i gned the c ol l ate ra lduty o fsup er vising the Com m unity Or i en te d Po l i cingS er vi ce ( “COPS ”) Uni t. The COPS U ni t, wh i ch w as com posed ofKidw el land two other offic er s, w as as sig n ed to p er iod i c a l l y p at ro l th e D an ville housi ng p roj ects and ass i st w i th ce rt ai n pol i ce investi gat i ons.N o. 11

- 1929 3 I n M ar ch 200 7, Defen dant Doug M i l l er, a depu ty dir ecto r ofthe pol i ce depar tm ent, r ecei ved a call fro m an ano nym ous s ourc e who i nfo rm ed M i l l erthat Da n v i l l e g a n gm e mb e r s w e r e p l a n n i n ga h i to n t wo pol i ce o ffi cer s. A s the super vi soro fthe CO PS Un i t, K i dw el lbec am e invol ved i n i nvest igati ng thi s threa t. A ftera peri od ofti m e, Kidw el lbec am e di sp l eas ed w i th the pol i ce depar tm ent’ s pro gr ess, s o he to ok i t o n hi m se l ft o di gfur th eri nt o the i nv es ti g at i o n. A s p ar t o f t h i s s u p p lem en ta l inv es tig at ion, K id w ell cul ti vate d a r el ati onshi p w i th a c onfi denti ali nfo rm ant. Subse que n tly, the confi denti ali nfo rm ant was ar re ste d f o r b a t t e r i nga wo mana nd wa s j a i l e d wi th a h i g h b o nd

. I n De ce m be r 2 00 7, Ki dwel la ppr o ac he d a n a ss i st an t sta te’ s a tto rneyto r equ es t that the at torney t al k t o the j ud ge abo ut l oweri ng the bo nd am ount s o that K i dw ell coul d conti nue to work w i th the i nfo rm ant o n the p o l i c e a s s a s s i na t i o n i nv e s t i g a t i o n. T he a t t o r ne y a pparently a gr eed to se ek a r educti on o f t h e bond am ount. A f ew wee k s l ater, K idwel la g ain metwi ththe assista nts ta te ’ s at to r ne y who t o l d Ki dwel ltha t th e j ud ge ha d refused t o l o w er the bon d am ou nt
. So K id w ell p er so n ally m et w ith th e jud ge w h o a p p ar en tly tol d K i dw el lthatthe ass i sta nt st ate ’ s a tto rneyhad neverr eq u est ed that the info rm ant’ s bo nd am ount be l o wer ed. Af te r Ki dwel le xpl aine d that the i nf o r m an t w as hel ping hi m i nvest iga te a pol i ce a ssa ssinati on pl ot, the j ud g e a g r e e d t o l o we r the a mou nt o fthe bond. T h e sta te ’s att or n ey ’s office w as u p se t th at K i d w e ll ha d surrep titi ou sly discu ssed the low ering of th e inform an t’ s bo nd wi th a j udg e an d co m pl aine d to De fendant4 N o. 11

- 1929 Larr y Thom aso n, Dir ector o f Danvi l l e’ s Publ i c S afety Depa r tment
. Co nc erne d abo utthe futur e o fthe r ela ti o nsh ip betw een the p oli ce d ep artm en t and the sta te’s attorney’ s o ffi ce, Thom aso n i ni ti ate d an i nvest i gat i on into K i dw el l ’ s a cti ons. A lth ou gh Kidw el lwas f ound not t o have vi ol ate d any pol ice departm ent rule s, the departm ent ne ver thel ess change d i ts pol icy to f orbi d such back ro om deal i ngs with j ud ges i n the future. K i dw el l ’ s fi rs t purpor ted acto fpro tect ed sp ee c h occur r ed so o n the r ea fter, a nd a tum ul tu o us y ea r a nd a ha l fe ns ue d. On F eb r ua r y 1 1, 2 00 8, Kidw ell a nd anothe r offi c er m ade a j oi nt pre senta ti on a t the Pol i ce Benevol ent and Pr ote cti ve A sso ci ati on ( the “ unio n”) m eeting, exp ressing con cern abou t the de p artm en t’s f ai l ure to f ol l ow through on the pol i ce a ssa ssinati on i nvest i gat i on . Kidw el lal so re l aye d the afor em enti oned i nci dent w here the ass i sta nt st ate’ s a tto rneyhad l i ed to him abou t atte m p ting to ha ve th e con fi d en tial inform ant’s bo nd l o wer ed. F i na l l y, Ki dwel lb r o ug htup th e pros pect o fthe unio n hol ding a n o- confi dence vo te ag ains t th e po l i ce de par tmenta dm inis tr at i o n a nd the ma y o r . T ha tv o t e a pp a r e nt l y n e v e r o c c ur r e d. N ex t, o n Apr i l2 , 2 00 8, Ki dwel la ppr o ac he d De fen d an t Bob Ri chard, a depu ty d irecto r ofthe pol i ce depar tm en t, con cern ing an i nt er na l invest igation Rich ard w as c onducti ng o n a fel l ow offi cer, Tony Pi att
. Kidw ell asked Rich ard

— w hi l e Pi attwas w i thi n ear shot

— “Why ar e y ou hea dh unti ng hi m ?” On A pri l15 , pursuant to departm entalr ule s a nd r egul ati ons, Ri cha rd i ssued K i dw el la “W ri tte n Repri m and at Di vi si on L ev el” f or K i dw el l ’ s publ i c hea dh unti ng co m m ent.N o. 11

- 1929 5 Laterin A pri l20 08, Ri chard r ecei ved w or d that K idw ellhad been m eeting w ith inform an ts in K id w ell ’s p er so n al v eh icle w h ile o n d u ty an d w ith ou t a n yo n e in th e p o l i c e de pa r t men t ’ s kno wl e dg e . Co nc e r ne d f or K idw ell ’s safety, Rich ard i ns tru cted a police c o m m a nd er, J ohn M i l l er, to m eetwith Kidw el land dir ect h im not to m eetwith info rm ants al one w i thout fi rs t t el l i ng so m eone i n the departm ent. On M ay 1 , 2 008, M i l l err el aye d th e di r ec ti ve t o Kidw ella nd e m pha si ze d tha t th e d irective w as p ut i n p lace out of c o n cern f or K idw ell ’s sa fety . Ki dwel lde nied (an d c o nt i nue s to de ny ) tha t he h ad m et w it h info rm an ts in h is p er so n al v eh icle w h ile on duty. H e c on te nd s that thi s pol i cy w as i nsti tuted s o l e l y f o r h i m. On M ay 23, 20 08, Ri chard info rm ed K id w ell that th e COPS Uni t, w hi chKi dwel ls upe r vi se d, was b eing com bi ned w ith anotheruni t nam ed the Pro bl em Ori ented Pol i ci ng ( “POP”) Unit. F orm ed i n J une 200 7, the POP U ni t con sist ed ofo ne se rg eant and thre e offi cer s a nd was or gani zed u nd erthe pol i ce depar tm ent’ s cri m i nal i nvest i gat i ons sect i on. The re cor d is not cl earo n how the CO PS a nd POP U n i ts w er e di ffer ent, b u t i t i s a p p a r e n t th a t th e y h a d o v e r l a p p i n g r o l e s . As Tho m as o n puti t, b o thuni ts a ss i sted det ec ti ve s an d sha r e d r e s o ur c e s . Th o mas o n a pp a r e nt l y wa s s e e k i ngto fi nd a w ay to com bi ne the COP S and PO P U ni ts beginning i n J une 2007( the incepti on o fthe POP U ni t) , as the depar tm ent was hi t with eco nom i c and m anpow er c o n s t r a i n t s i n th e b e g i n n i n go f2 0 0 8
. T h o ma s o n b e c a me furtherco nvi nced that i t w oul d be a m or e e ffi ci ent use o fb o th r e s o u r c e s a n d ma n p o we r t o c o m bin e th e t wo6 N o. 11

- 1929 unit s under the invest igat i ons sect i on. S peci fi cal l y, b e c a u s e th e p a t r o ls e c t i o n w a s i n n e e d o fmo r e c o mm and perso nnel, com bi ni ng the two i nvest i gat i on uni ts had the e ffect offre ei ng up K i dw el lto fo c u s m or e o n hi s su per vi so r y r o l e i n the pa tr o ls ec ti o n. And s o the unit s m er ged and the CO PS U ni t w as pla ced u nd er the l eader shi p ofthe POP U ni t s er gea nt and t h e investi g at i o ns s ec ti o n. Ki dwel l ’ s l ea dershi p po si ti o n was thus el i m i nated, and on J une 25, 20 08, Ri ch ar d o rder ed K i dw el lto tur n i n hi s COPS U ni t- i ssued cel lphone. On A u gust 8, 20 08, Kidw el lat tended anotheruni on m eet i ng wh er e he engag ed i n anothe r p u rp or ted act of protect ed sp eech

. K idw ellcom p lai ne d that Rich ard had i nter fer ed w i th a grievance tha t Kidw el lhad fi l ed an d had otherw ise been a c t in g con trary to the u nion ’s pol i ci es. Kidw el lthus a rgued tha t Richar d had a confl i ct ofi nter estand ask ed that Ric hard be r em ove d fro m th e u n ion . K id w ell w as th e p rim ar y p re se n te r at th is m ee t in g , and Th om ason , Rich ard , and Do ug M il ler w ere al li n att endance. On A ugust 2 6, 20 08, a l i ttl e m or e than two w eek s a ft e r the s e c o nd u ni o n mee t i ng, Ki dwe l l re c e i v e d a cal l fro m t he s ame c o nf i den ti al i nf o r m an t who had been hel pin g K i dw el lwith the pol i ce- ass ass i nati on i nvest i gat i on. The i nfo rm ant t ol d K i dw ell th at he was i n Chicag o and i n po ssessi on o fan e xplos i ve devi ce; he a sk ed K idw ell to t r av elt o Chi ca g o s o tha t th e inform an t cou ld tu rn th e d evice over t o K id w ell

. So K id w ell tr av el e d t o C h ica go in h is p er so n al v eh icle w ith ou t t ellin g a n yo n e in th e p olic e d ep ar tm en t (a tripN o. 11

- 1929 7 ofatl eas t 1 20 m i l es one w ay) , and tooka ci vi l i an with hi m . On arr i val, Kidw el ldi sco ver ed that the explo si ve devi ce was ac tu all y a pi ece offi re w or k. Confi dent that i t woul d no t ex pl o de i n t r an si t, Ki dwel lc ar r i ed th e de v i c e i n hi s t r un kb a c kt o the Da nv i l l e p o l i c e de partm en t. A fte r re tu r n i n g t o th e d ep ar tm en t, K id w ell in for m ed R ich ar d th at h e h ad an ex p l o s ive d ev ice in h i s t r u n k, a n d R i c h a r d d i r e c t e d K i d we l lt o ca l lth e b o mb squad. K i dw el l did so and was i nstr uct ed to dri ve the devi ce o verto Ogden, I l l i noi s, ap proxi m ate l y 1 5 t o 2 0 mi l e s a wa y, t o turn i to v e r t o the b o mb s qu a d. W he n Th o m as o n l ea r ne d o fthi s epi so de, he was c oncer ned about seve ra las pects of K i dw el l ’ s co nd uct. A m ong th ose co ncer ns was the f act that K i dw el lhad gone o ut o fthe pol i ce depar tm ent’ s j uri sdic ti on w i thout noti fyi ng ei therhi s o w n c h ai n ofco m m and or the Ch i cago pol i ce departm ent, and that K i dw el lhad als o potenti al l y pl aced a ci vi l i an i n danger

. Thom aso n ther ef or e ca l l ed a m ee ti ng with K i dw el l, wh o re counted the detai l s of the tr i p, cor robor ating the in for m ati on that Thom aso n had re cei ved. Thom aso n then info rm ed K i dw el lbym em or andu m thatKid w ell w as i n vi ol ati on o fse ver alde par tment alr ul es , a nd a s puni sh m en t K i dw el lwas suspended f ortwo days on S eptem ber17, 2008
. O n t he sa me d a y th a th i s s u s p e n s i o n b e g a n, S e p t e mber17, 20 08, Kidw el ltr anspor ted the sa m e co nfi denti al i nfor m an t to Bur l i ng to n, I o wa, o st en sibl y s o tha t th e i n f o r ma n tc o ul d r e c e i v e me d i c a lt r e a t me n tfr o m a re cent gunshot w ound (t h e info rm ant a pp ar entl y had8 N o. 11

- 1929 fam il y i n Bu rl i ngton an d felt m or e c om for ta b le r e c e i v i n gt r e a t me n tth e r e )
. C u r i o u s l y, th e i n f o r m an t s u st ain ed th is w ou n d w h ile at a ga s s ta tio n in Bu rl i ngto n. N otab ly, the i nfo rm ant was a convi cted fel on wh ose b on d r est ri cti ons prohibi ted hi m fro m l ea ving the st ate o fI l l i noi s without pri orapprov al

. Once in B urlington , K id w e llpu rch ased a disp osab le cam era an d t o o ksom e p ictur es o fthe g as s ta ti o n whe r e th e i nf o r m an t ha d b ee n s ho t. He a l so i nquir ed ab o utthe gas st ati on’ s s ecuri ty vi deo f oo tag e. Kid w ell denie s that thi s a cti vi ty am ounted to any sort ofpol i ce investi gat i on, cl ai m i ng t h at he di d not t ake any note s, ci te nam es ofi nd i vi du al s, o r re cove r any s hel lcas i ngs. The Bu rl i ngto n pol i ce depar tm ent thought di ffer entl y. The sam e day that K i dw el land the i nfo rm ant t ra vel ed to Bur l i ng to n, Ri ch ar d r ec ei ve d a c al lfr o m a Li euten an t K ra m er atth e B u r l i n gt on p olic e d ep ar tm en t, as kin g if an o ffi cernam ed K i dw el lhad bee n authorized to conduct an invest i gat i on in I owa. Kram err el aye d that Ki dwel lha d g o ne t o a g as s ta tion wher e a sh o o ting had occurr ed, sho w ed hi s Danvi l l e pol i ce i denti fi cati on, as ked quest i ons, and in q uir ed abo ut vi deotapes

. K ram er conv eyed his conc ern th at K idw ellw as interfer in g w ith an ac tiv e in ve st iga tio n an d n ot ed th at, i f K i dw el lco nti nued , he c oul d be br ought up on cri m i nal charg es. Ric hard passe d on thi s info rm ati on t o Thom ason, wh o, afterKidw el lr etur ned to Danvil l e, spok e briefl y with K id w ell ab o u t w h at h ad oc c u rre d an d th en to ld K i dw ell that the Burl i ngto n pol i ce depar tm ent hadN o. 11

- 1929 9

vo ice d its co n c er n . Th om as on b e l i ev ed th atK id w ell ha d v i o l at ed depa r tment alpo l i cyb y i m pl y i ngthat he was c o nduc tingan i nv es ti g at i o n in Bur l i ng to n wi th o ut l e t t i n g th e B u r l i n g t o n p o l i c e d e p a r t me n t k n o w i n a dva nc e. ( Ki dwel l st at es th at he di d i n f ac t l et the Bu rl i ngto n pol i ce know o fhi s pre sence

—but he d id so onl y a fterhe ha d l eft t own and w as m ad e aw ar e that th e g as s ta ti o n mana g ermightb e c om pl aini ngabo ut hi s a cti ons.) A dd i ti onal l y, Thom aso n bel i eve d that K i dw el lhad vi ol ate d p olicy byfra terni zi ng with a fel on and ai ding that felon ’s vi ol ati on o fhi s bo nd r est ri cti ons by tak i ng him acro ss sta te l i nes. Kidw el lwas not i m m edi at ely puni sh ed f o r hi s a ct i o ns , ho wev er, a nd afte r he ha d s er ve d the r emai nder ofhi s two
- days us pen si on he re turned t o du ty. B u t o n ly a few d ay s late r, on Sep te m b er 21 , 200 8, K id w ell w as i nvol ved i n a c aracc i dent w h ile on duty. Duri ng a h igh -sp ee d ch as e t h at inv olv ed se ve ra l offic er s, K id w ell w as m aki nga thr ee - po i nttur n o n a hi g hway whenhe w as bro adsi ded by a squad c ar dri ven by an ot h er pol i ce o f f i c er . B ot h K id w ell an d th e p olic e o ffice r w h o h it hi m suffer ed ser i ous inj uri es, a n d ther e was exte nsi ve proper ty dam age done t o seve ra lve hi cl es. Detect i ve St ar k, a Danvil l e pol i ce depar tm en t o ffi cerwh o w as of fd uty a tthe t i me, wi tne s s e d the a c c i de nta nd r e po rt ed to Thom aso n hi s v er si on o fthe eve nts. Based o n that r epo r t, Tho m ason deci ded to ha ve S ta r khe ad th e en s uingi nv e s t i g a t i o n i nt o h o w the a c c i de nth a d h a pp e ne d. The Danvil l e Po li ce Depar tm ent Po l i cy M anual st ate s th at, “[w ]h e n e ve r a p olic e v eh icle is in vo lve d in a ve h icle10 N o. 11

- 1929 acci dent w hi ch i nvol ves death , se ri ous inj ury, o r m aj or pr o per tyda m ag e, the o n duty s upe r vi so r wi l lr eque stthe acci dent to be i nvest i gat ed b y either the Ver m i l i on C ou n ty Sh er iff’s D ep ar tm en t o r th e I l l i n ois Sta te P olic e.” Thom aso n’s appoi ntm ent o fS tar k t o head the i nvest i gati on thus os tensibl y v i ol ate d thi s pol i cy, wh i ch r equi re s th e appo i nt m en t o fa n o utside a g en cywhens er i o us acci dents o ccur to avo i d the appear ance o fi m propri ety. Thom aso n, however , st ate d that he i nter prets the pol i cy to re quir e outsi de age ncy i nvol vem ent onl y i f ther e is a death that re sul ts from an a cci dent betw een a pol i ce depar t men tv e hi c l e a nd a c i v i l i a n v e hi c l e . Be c a use ther e w er e no deaths and the t w o m ai n vehi cl es i nvol ved i n the acci dent bel onge d to the depar tm ent, Thom aso n saw no nee d to appo in t a n outs i de age ncy to h ea d th e in ve st iga tio n . Th e p olic e d ep ar tm en t’s V eh icle Acci den t Damag e Re vi ew Co m m i tt ee , c o m po sed of o ne c o mma n d o ffi c e r a n d f o u r t o fi v e o th e r d e p a r t me n tme mb er s, su b se q u e n t ly fou n d th at K id w ell w as atfau lt in the a cci dent. A l though no t i m m edi ate l y di sci plin ed f or hi s p ar t in causing the acc i dent, Kidw el lwas out of w or k forthe next se ver alm onths du e t o hi s inj uri es su st aine d dur i ngthe c r as h. K id w ell w as st ill of fo fw or k a n d rec ov er in g fro m h is i nj ur i es w he n, o n J an ua r y 1 2, 2 00 9, he i nf o r m ed th e pol i ce departm en t that he w as tak i ng the pre scr i pti on dr ug s Lexap ro and Abi l i fy . Ki dwel ls ta te d tha t he b e g a n t a k i n g L e x a p r o i n 2 0 0 7, a n d Ab i l i fy i n No v e mbe r 20 08 , to tr ea t o bsessive-com p ulsive d isorder. Ki dwe l ldi s c l o s e d thi s i nfo r mat i o n, a lb e i tb e l a t e dl y, because under depart m entalpol i cy pol i ce o ffi cer s m ustN o. 11

- 1929 11 di s c l o s e t o the i r s up e r v i s o r s w he n the y a r e t a k i ngme di cati on. A s a r esul t o fKidw el l ’ s m edi cati on di scl osu re , o n J an ua r y 2 6, 2 00 9, T hom ason o r der ed Ki dwel lt o undergo a fi tness
- f or - du ty evalu ati on a t the Insti tute f or Publi c S afetyPer sonnel, Inc. , l oca ted i n I nd i anap oli s, I ndi an a. Tho m as o n’ s wri tt eno r ders ta te d tha t th e re as on s fo r th e e va lu at ion w er e K i d w ell’s “in c re as in gly ch an ged be h a vior over the last year, ” an d K idw ell ’s disc l osur e that he w as tak i ng Lexapro and A bi l i fy. A s o rder ed, Kid w ell subm i tte d to the fi tness
- f or - du ty evaluati on o n Jan u ary 2 9, 20 09. The next day, Thom aso n pla ced K i dw el lo n adm i ni str ati ve lea ve, ci ti ng as hi s r ati on ale t he f act that K i dw el lwas und er going a fi tness
- f or - du ty evaluati on. Dr. D arre n H i gginbotham perf or m ed K i dw el l ’ s evaluati on a nd , o n Feb ruar y 6 , 20 09, i nfo rm ed Thom aso n that K i dw el lwas unfi t forduty. Thom aso n then pl ac ed K i dw el lo n l eave f ora non- du tyre l ate d i l l ness. K i d w ell h ad to be fou n d fit for d u ty be for e h e c ou ld r es um e hi s po l i ce dut i es . T he r efo r e, Tho m as o n s o ug ht to have K i dw el lta ke anothe r fi tness
- f or - du ty evaluati o n, b ut Dr
. Hi g g i nb o tha m r e fus e d t o wo r k wit h K i dw el lany furtherbec ause ofa dispute that occur re d w hen K i dw el l ’ s w or ker ’ s com pensati on att or ney su bpoenaed Dr. H i gginbotham for hi s r eco rds. Thom aso n eve ntual ly ordered Kidw el lto subm i t t o an ev al uati on w ith D r. M i c h a el C am p ion on M ay 29 , 200 9. K id w ell i ni ti al l y com pli ed w i th thi s o rder, but w as concerned w i th w hat he belie ved to be an o ver l y b ro ad m edi calr el eas e w ai ver, so he withd re w hi s co nsen t to h ave the e val uati on ( al ong w i th al lo fhi s m ed ical re cor ds) turned o ver12 N o. 11

- 1929 to th e p o l i c e d e p a r t me n t
. T h e u n i o n i n f o r med th e po l i ce depa r tment o f th e r ea so n f o r Ki dwel l ’ s con sen t wi th d r a wa l, a n d i t s e l fe x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n th a tthe b r o a d me d i c a lr e l e a s e v i o l a t e d I l l i n o i s l a w. Defen d ant S co ttEi se nha ue r, Da nv i l l e’ s m ay o r, e ve ntual l y s ought to have K i dw el lte rm i nated. A ccor dingl y, o n S ept embe r 1 4, 2 00 9, Tho m as o n fi l ed ch ar g es s ee k i ng to disc harg e Kidw el lf ori nsubor dinati on be cause K i d w e l lh a d d i s o b e y e d a d i r e c to r d e r t o r e l e a s e D r . C a mpio n’s repor t t o the pol i ce depar tm ent. Thom aso n also sough t K id w ell ’s term ination be cau se of Kid w ell ’s vi ol ati on o fde p ar tm entalpol i cy du ring hi s t ri p to Bur l i ng ton, I o wa a nd dur i ngthe hi g h- spe ed ch as e th e p re vi o us y ea r . The uni o n fi l ed a g r i ev an ce o n Ki dwe ll ’s be ha l f, c ha l l en g i ngthe g r o unds f o r t er m i na ti o n. The arbi tr at o r a ss i g ne d t o the matt ere ve ntua l l y f o und that ther e was no j u st cause f orte rm i nati on a nd that a seven -da y sus p en sion w as w arran ted f or K idw ell ’s ac tions dur i ngthe Bur l i ng to n inc i den t an d the hi g hspe ed ch as e ac ci den t. M o r eo ve r, the a rbi tr at o r f o und that K i dw el lwas not in su bor dinat e forr efusi ng to si gn Dr. Cam pio n’s bro ad m edi cal conse nt f or m . Although s he u l t i mat e l y o rder e d tha tKi dwe l lb e r e i ns t a t e d, the a rbi tr ato r condi ti oned hi s co nti nued em plo ym ent o n a fi t-for -du ty d eterm ination m ad e by an oth er doc t o r. K i dw el lapparent l y r em ai ns em plo yed bythe pol i ce de pa r t men tb uth i s e xa c ts t a t us i s u nc l e a r fr o m t he r e c o r d. I n additi on t o the a dm i ni str ati ve proce edi ngs, Ki dwel lfi l ed th i s su i t unde r 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 98 3, a l le g i ng that M ayo r Eise nhauer, Dir ecto r Thom aso n, and Depu tyN o. 11

- 1929 13 Di r e c t o r s Mi l l e r a nd R i c har d v i o l a t e d h i s F i r s tAmen dm en t righ ts b y ret alia tin g aga in st h im b ec au se o fh is spe ec he s dur i ngthe uni o n mee ting s o f F eb r ua r y a nd A ugust 2 008. The di str i ct c ourtgr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants, and K i dw el lnow app eal s.

II. S um m ar y j udg m en t i s appr o pr i at e when “the mova nt sh o ws tha t th er e i s no g en uin e d i spu te a s to a ny m ate ri alf act and th e m ovant i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m at te r o fl aw. ” F ed. R. Ci v. P. 5 6( a)
. Al th o ug h we co nst rue a l lf ac ts a nd mak e al lr ea so nabl e i nfer en ce s i n a ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le t o t h e n on m ov in g p ar ty , Spi egl a v. H ull, 371 F. 3d 928, 935 ( 7th C ir. 2004 ), w e w ill a ff irm th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s gr an t o fs um m ar y j udg m en t i fthe nonm ovin g par ty “i s unabl e t o ‘ est abl i sh the exi ste nce ofan e sse nti alel em ent t o [ th at party’ s] cas e, and on w hi ch [ that party ] wil lbear the b urden ofpro ofat t r i a l

. . . . ’ ” B en u zzi v. B d. of Ed uc. , 64 7 F
. 3d 652, 66 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 1 1 ) ( qu o t i ng C elotex C orp. v. Ca tret t, 47 7 U.S

. 31 7, 3 2 2 ( 1 9 8 6 ) )
. We r e v i e w th e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a nto fs u mm ar y j ud gm ent deno vo . Id. K i dw el lcl ai m s that the defendants r eta l i ate d against hi m f orenga gi ng i n speech pr ot ected und erthe Fi rs t Am en dm en t i n viol at i o n o f4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 98 3. To succee d, K i dw el l m ust m ake out a pri m a fac ie case ofr eta l i ati on, de m on st ra ti ng tha t: “( 1) hi s s peech was const i tuti onal l y pr ote cted; ( 2) he has s uffer ed a depri vati on l i kel y to deter fre e speech; and ( 3) hi s spe ec h w as at lea st a m o tiv at in g fa c to r inth e e m p loy er ’s a c tio n s.”14 N o. 11

- 1929 M as s ey v . Johns on , 45 7 F .3d 7 11 , 71 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( c i t i ng S p iegla , 371 F.3d at93 5, 94 0-4 1); Red d v

. Nol an , 663 F. 3d 287, 29 4- 95 (7 th Ci r. 20 11) ( ci ti ng Gre e nev. D oruff , 66 0 F
. 3d 975, 97 7- 78 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) )
. In this cas e the defe nd ants chal l enge onl y the thi rd f acto r, so that i s wh e r e we wi l lf o c u s o u r d i sc us si o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y, we express no op i ni on o n w hetherKidw el l ’ s s peech was con stitut ionall y p r o tect ed or w he th er the d ep artm en t’s acti ons const i tuted dep ri vati ons that w er e l i kel y t o det erfr ee s pee ch

. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s s u e d i t s o r d e r g r a n t i n gs u mm ar y j ud gm ent in f avor of th e defendants i n A pri l20 11. A t th a t t im e , the th ird factor, w hich requ ires the p lai nt iff to dem onst ra te a causall i nk be tw een hi s pro tect ed speech a nd the em plo yer ’ s acti ons, see m ed to be in a s tat e o ft r a n s i t i o n i n fe d e r a lc o u r t s . F o r y e a r s , th e S u p r e me Court had requi re d that, to es tabl i sh a pri m a f aci e ca se ofr eta liati on, a pla i nti ffneed o nl y pr oduce ev i dence suffi cien t to al l ow fo r an i nfe re nce that hi s s peech was a m ot iva tin g fac to r in th e em p loy er ’s d e c isio n . See M t. Healthy B d . o

f E duc. v. D oyle, 42 9 U.S

. 274, 28 7 (19 77 ); Spiegl a , 37 1 F
. 3d at 941- 43 ( applying the tes t s et f o r thi n M t
. He al t hy )
. T h e n a l o n gc a me th e S u p r e me Cou r t’ s dec i si o n in G ross v. FB L Financial Service s, Inc. , 55 7 U
. S. 167, 12 9 S

. Ct. 23 43 ( 2009 ) , an Age Di scr i m i nati on Em plo ym ent Act cas e, w h ich hel d that, “unl ess a sta tute p ro vid es oth er w ise , d em on st ra tin g b u t-fo r c au sa tio n is a par t o fthe plain ti ff’ s bur den i n al lsui ts und erfedera l l aw . ” F ai r l ey v. An dre ws , 57 8 F
. 3d 518, 52 5- 26 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( ci ti ng G ross , 129 S. C t. at 23 49 ). N ot ab ly, G ross di d not ove rr ule M t
. He al t hy . Th is, intu rn, cre at ed a te n sio n inN o. 11

- 1929 15

our case l aw wh en se ver alpost
- G ross d ec isi ons i nti m ate d that the m oti vating- f acto r sta nd ar d had been re pla ced by th e b u t-fo r st an d ar d

. C o m pa re Ko dish v. O a k bro o kTerraceFire P rote cti on D is t. , 604 F. 3d 490, 50 0- 01 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) , Gunv il le v. Wa lk er, 5 83 F
. 3d 97 9, 9 84 n. 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) , a nd Fa irley, 578 F.3d at52 5-2 6, w ith Spiegl a , 37 1 F
. 3d at 941- 43. Th us , on th e issue of cau s a tion, d istri ct cou rts w ere u n d er st an d ab ly p u zz led ov er w h et h er to ap p ly th e s tillsu r vi ving m o ti va ting - f ac to r te sta r ti cul at ed i n M t
. He al t hy a nd Spiegl a , o r w hetherto di scar d t h at tes t in f avo r of th e but

- f o r t es t se t f o r thi n G ross a nd F a irley

. M any, l i k e th e di st r i ctc o ur t i n thi s case, di sa vo wed the m oti va ting - f ac to r t es t an d a ppl i ed th e but

- f o r s ta ndard at t h e s u m m ar y jud gm en t s ta ge . SeeGree ne v. D oruff , 660 F. 3d 975, 978 (7th Cir. 2011) (col lecting case s). Thi s co ur t’ s r ec en t o pi ni o n in Gre e ne, which was i ssued afterthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s um m ar y j u d gm ent o rder i n thi s ca se, shed so m e l i ght on the “superfi ci al ” co nfl i ct be twe en M t
. He al t hy/ Spiegl a a nd G ross /Fa irley, an d se t about re conci l i ng the i r see m i ngl y di spara te hol dings

. Id. H ere is th e d isti nc tion: I n th e e n d , t he plaintiff m us t demons tr at e th at, b ut f o rhi s pr o te ct ed spe ec h, the empl o y erwou l d no t ha ve t ak enthe a dve r se a ct i o n. T his ex p lai ns the h oldings of G ross a nd Fa irley, wh i ch w er e ca ses thatdi scusse d the pl ai nti ff’s burden of p ro vin g c au sa tio n attria l. See G ross , 12 9 S

. Ct. at23 47, 2351; Fa irley, 5 7 8 F
. 3 d a t5 2 6
. B u tp r e l i mi n a r i l y a ts u mm ar y j ud gm ent, the burd en o fpro ofi s s pli t be tw een the par ti es. Ini ti al l y, to establ i sh a pri m a f aci e ca se ofr eta lia t i o n, th e p lain tiff m u st p ro d u c e e vid en c e t h at h is speech was atl eas t a m oti vating f acto r

— or , in p h ilos op h i-16 N o. 11

- 1929

W e reco g niz e tha t the d istrict cou rt d id no t ha v e the b en efit 1 o f G r ee new hen itrendered it s opinion granti ng sum m ary jud g m en t to the d efend an ts. It th erefor e d id no t pr op erly all ocate the burd en ofproof on the c ausati on ele m ent betw een the p a r t i e s, instead requ iring K id w ell to satisfy the b u tf or st and ard on his ow n. N o m att er, because w e m a y affir m on any b asi s thatapp ears i n the rec ord. B i ven s v. Tr e nt, 591 F. 3d 5 55 , 55 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10 ) ( c i t i ng Sam uel so n v. LaPor t e C m ty. Sch. C orp. , 5 2 6 F
. 3 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 5 1 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) )
. An d s o we w ill ad d r e ss each of K id w ell’ s arg u m en ts in sup p or t of his re t al i at i on c l ai m unde r the s t anda rd s etf or th i n G r e e ne . ca lt er m s, a “ su ffi ci en t co ndi ti o n”

— of the em p loyer’ s d ec isio n to ta ke ret alia to ry ac tio n ag ain st h im
. Gre e ne, 66 0 F
. 3d at9 79

- 80
. The n, the b ur dens hifts to the e mpl o y e r t o r e b u t th e c a u s a l i n fe r e n c e r a i s e d b y t he plain tiff’ s e vi dence. I fthe em plo yerf ai l s t o counter th e plaintiff’s eviden ce, then the em p loyer’ s retali atory ac ti ons a r e co ns i der ed a “n ec es sa r y c o ndi ti o n” o fthe pla i nti ff’ s har m , and the p l ai nti ffhas est abl i shed the butf o r c a u s a t i o n n e e d e d t o s u c c e e d o n h i s c l a i m. Id. at98 0. 1 So , to m ake o ut a p rim a faci e ca se f orr eta l i ati on a t su m m ar y judgment, Ki dwel lmustpr o duce s uffi ci en t evi dence to sho w thathi s purpor tedl y prot ected speech w as at l eas t a m oti vating f acto r i n the defe nd ants’ al l ege d ret al i ato ryem plo ym ent a cti ons tak en ag ai nst hi m . Kidw el lm ay do so bypresenti ng ei therdi re ct o r ci rcum sta nti alev i dence. “ ‘ Dir ect evid en ce i s e vi dence wh ich, i fb el i ev ed bythe t r i ero ff ac t, wi l lpr o ve the parti cul arf act i n questi on without r el i ance up on infe re nce orpre sum pti on. ’ ” R udin v. Lincoln Land C m ty. Co ll

. , 42 0N o. 11

- 1929 17 F
. 3 d 7 1 2 , 7 2 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i ng E il and v. Trini ty Hos p. , 1 50 F. 3d 747, 75 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) )
. Ci rcum sta nti al evi dence, however, i s e vid en c e fro m wh i ch a tr i ero f fac t m ay infe r th at ret alia tio n oc c u rre d

. Se ei d. at72 0- 21. “Ci r cumst antial ev iden ce may i nc l ude s us pi ci o us ti m i ng, am bi guous or alo r w ri tte n sta tem ents, or behavi or to w ar d s o r c om m en ts d ire c te d atoth er em p loy ee s in the pr ote cted g ro up . ” Lon g v . Te ac hers’ R et i r e m e ntSy s . of Il l. , 585 F.3d 344 , 350, (7th C ir. 2009) ( c it ation om itted ). I m port antl y, re gar dle ss of w hi ch type of evi dence is offer ed, “[ t] o dem onst ra te the re quis i te causalco nnecti on i n a r et al i at i o n c lai m , [ a] pl aint i ff [ ] musts ho w ‘ th atthe p ro te c te d ac tiv ity an d th e a d ve rs e a c tio n are n otw h olly unrel ate d.’ ” S au zek v. Exx on Coa l USA, Inc. , 20 2 F
. 3d 913, 91 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( quoti ng H u n t-G olli day v. M et
. WaterReclam ation D is t. , 104 F.3d 1 0 0 4, 1014 ( 7th Cir. 1997 ) )
. H er e, Kidw el lr el i es sol el y on ci rcum sta nti al ev i d en ce; s pec i fi ca l l y, he a r g ue s th atthe t i m i ngo fthe var i ous a l l ege d ret aliator y e m plo ym ent a cti ons tak en aga i nst hi m was suspi ci ous a nd thatthe defendants’ depar t ur e fr o m e s t ab l i s he d p r o c e du r e s e v i nc e d a r e t a l i atory m oti ve.

A. S us pi c i o us T i mi ng K i dw el lar gues that the al l ege d ret al i ato ryem plo ym en t a c tio n s t a ke n ag ain st h im lea d in g u p to th e d ec isi on t o see k hi s t er m i nati on a m ounted to “progre ss i ve d iscipli ne ” an d w ere close enou gh i n tim e to his pu rport ed ly prote cted s peech to al l ow a r eas onabl e f act fi nd erto i nfe r that the a cti ons w er e t ake n because o f18 N o. 11

- 1929 that speech. That di sci plin e, K i dw el lco ntends, was com posed of the f ol l owing fi ve i nci dents: the w ritten re pri m and on A pr i l15 , 20 08; the re str i cti ons on wh en and how he m ay m eetwith info rm an ts in l ate A pri l20 08; th e ca nc el l at i o n o f h is COP S Uni t as si g nm en t i n J une 2008 ; the tw o- day suspensi on he re cei ved i n Se ptem ber 20 08 ; a nd the f act tha t th e po l i ce de par tments o ug ht t o t e r mi n a t e hi m fo l l o win gth e c a r a c c i d e n ti n S e p t e mber20 08. A t t h e o u ts et, w e n ot e t h at su sp icio u s t i m i n g w ill

“ ‘ra re ly b e s u fficie n t in an d of its el ft o c r ea te a tr iab le i ssue. ’ ” Cul ve r v. Gorman & Co. , 4 16 F.3d 540 , 546 (7th C ir. 2005 ) ( quoti ng St onev. Ci ty of Indi anap o lis P ub. U t i l s . D i v. , 281 F. 3d 640, 644 ( 7th Cir

. 2002 ) )
. The re aso n is ob vi ous: “[ s] uspici ou s ti m i ng m ay be j ust that

— su spi ci o us

— an d a s u s p i c i o n i s n o te n o u g h t o g e tp a s ta mot i o n f o r s u mm ar y j ud gm ent. ” Lou de r m i l k v. Be s tPal l e tCo. , 63 6 F
. 3d 312, 31 5 ( 7th C i r. 20 11) ( ci tat i on o m i tte d). A ccor dingl y, f ora suspi ci ous- ti m i ng ar gu m ent a l one to gi ve ri se to an i nfe re nce o fcausa ti on, the pla i nti ffm ust dem onst ra te that “an a d ve rs e e m plo ym ent a cti on f ol l ows cl ose o n th e hee ls ofprote cted exp ressio n, and the p lai nt iff [ m us t] sho w tha t th e per so n who de ci ded to i m po se the advers e a cti on knew o fthe p ro tect ed conduct. ” Lal vani v. Cook Cnty. , 269 F.3d 785 , 790 (7th C ir. 2001). The r e ca n b e no s etl eg alr ul e f o r de te r m ini ng w he th eran a dvers e e m plo ym ent a cti on f al l s “ cl ose o n the heel s”o f prot ecte d a cti vi ty because such a d et er m i nati on “depend s o n context. ” Loud er m il k, 63 6 F
. 3d at 315. O f co u rs e, “[t ]h e c los er tw o e ve n ts are , th e m or e like lyN o. 11

- 1929 19 that the fi rs t ca used the seco nd

. ” Id. But i t i s cl earfro m our case law that the ti m e per i od betw een the pro

tect ed activity and the a d verse ac tion m us t be “very cl ose . ” Id. ( ci ti ng C la rk C nty . Sch . D i s t
. v. B reeden , 53 2 U
. S. 26 8, 27 3 ( 2001 ) )
. Fo r an i nfe re nce o fcausa ti on t o be dr awn so l ely o n the b as i s o fa s us pi ci o us - ti m i nga r g um ent, we typi cal l y a l l ow no m or e than a few d ays to el apse b etween the prot ecte d acti vi ty and the adver se ac tio n . Se e, e . g. , i d. a t 31 4-15 ( hol ding that a work er w ho handed his supe rv isor a no te that com pla i ned of w or kpl ace disc ri m i nati on a nd was i m m edi ate l y fi re d had establ i shed an i nfe re nce o fcausa ti on byway of su s p i c i o u s t im in g); C a sna v. C ityof Lo ves P a rk, 574 F
. 3d 420, 42 2- 23, 42 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( hol ding t h at a o ne- day ti m e per i od betw ee n t he em plo yee ’ s co m pla i nt and her su p ervisor’s r ecom m e n d ation to fi re her w as su ffici en t); M cClendon v. Ind. Suga rs Inc. , 10 8 F .3d 7 89 , 7 96- 97 ( 7th Cir

. 19 97) ( hol ding that a tw o- to thr ee- day ti m e per iod between the em p l oye e’ s co m pla i nt and hi s di schar ge wa s s u ffi c i e n t )
. In th i s c a s e , th e r e w a s a s i g n i fi c a n tt i me l apse b etween the tw o i nstance s o fpurport edl y pr otect ed speech a nd the severa l a l l ege d ret al i ato ryem plo ym ent a cti ons that K i dw el lci tes
. Kidw el l ’ s fi rs t a ct o f pu rpor tedl y pr ote cted s peech o ccu rr ed on F ebr uary11 , 2008 . B u t the fi rs t a l l ege d ret al i ato ryact i on he ci tes , n am ely , th e A p ril 15 , 200 8 w rit te n rep rim an d for h is

“ h e a d h u n t i n g ” c o mme n t, o c c u r r e d mo r e th a n t wo m onths lat er . Kidw el l ’ s s eco nd acto fpurport edl y pr ote ct ed spe ec h o cc ur r ed o n Augu st 8, 2 00 8, y etthe ne xt al l ege d ret al i ato ryactta ken a ga in st hi m afterthat un ion m eeting occ u r r e d ap p roxim ately fi ve w eeks later,20 N o. 11

- 1929

w hen he was suspended for tw o days forvi ol ating departm ental pol i cy w hen tr anspor ti ng an explo si ve d evi ce. The o theral l ege d ret al i ato ryact i ons ci ted by Ki d wel l w er e e v e n mo r e r e mo v e d i n t i me fr o m h i s t wo acts of pu rpor tedl y prot ecte d s peech. Based on our case l aw , these extended ti m e gaps al one m i l i tat e a gainst al l o wi nga n infer en ce o fc au sa ti o n b as ed o n sus pi ci o us ti m i ng. Bu t a l l owing such an infe re nce wo uld be ev en m or e in ap p ro p ria te w h en w e c on sid er th e c o n te x t in wh i c h th e v a r i o u s c o mp l a i n e d

- o fa c t i o n s w e r e t a k e n . We have note d e l sewhere that “an em plo yee ’ s com pla in t . .
. d oe s n otim m u n ize [h im ] from be in g s u b se q u en tly d isc iplined orte rm i nated f ori napp ro pr iat e work pla ce b ehavi or . ” Hal l v. Bod i neEle c. Co. , 27 6 F
. 3d 345, 35 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. Thu s, w he r e a “s i g ni fi ca nti nt er ve ni ng e v e nts e pa r a t [ e s ] ” a n e mpl o y e e ’ s p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i ty fro m th e a d ve rs e e m p loy m en t a c tio n h e re c eiv es , a su sp icio u s-t im i n g a rg u m en t w ill no t p re va il. D avi s v. Ti meWar n e rC a b l eo

f S e . Wi s . , L
. P. , 65 1 F
. 3d 664, 675 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11)
. H er e, as d iscussed bel ow, the e vi dence sh o ws tha t Ki dwel l ’ s o wn ab er r an t ac ti o ns o r o th eri nterv en i ng ci rcum sta nces l ed to the negat i ve re sponses tha th e i nc ur r e d. That the dep ar tm ent t oo k the fi rs t neg ati ve re s po ns e , i s s uingKi dwe l la wr i t t e n r e pr i man d fo r h i s “ he a dhunting” co m m ent, cannotbe surpri si ng; noto nl y was that com m ent insubor dinat e a nd a vi ol ati on o fdepartm entalpol i cy, but K i dw el lhi m sel facknow l edged i ts i m propri ety, st ating tha t “ i n hi nd si ght .

. . I w oul dn ’ t hav e sa id it if Ih ad to go b ac k a n d d o it a ll ove r a g a i n . . . . ”N o. 11

- 1929 21 F ur th er, u nc ont roverted te stim ony b y de par tment offic ials sh ow s th at th e sec on d ac tio n ta ke n i n A p ril 2008 , wh i ch co nsi ste d ofthe departm ent e stabl i shi ng a p oli cy th at p rohibited officers from m eeting w ith inform an ts al one w i thout tel l i ng so m eone i n the departm ent, w a s t a k e n o ut o f a c o nc e r n f o r Ki dwe l l ’ s , a s wel l as othe r offi cer s’ , sa fety
. A l though Kidw el lco ntends that he was n ot m eet i ng i nfo rm ants w i thout the depar tm en t o ffi ci al s’ kn ow le dge , he do es no t di spu te tha t th e departm ent o ffi ci al s r ecei ved not i ce that Kidw el lwas m ee ting w i th i nfo rm ants outsi de ofthe offi ci al s’ pu rv i ew and t h at the o ffi ci al s had Kidw el l ’ s per sonal safety in m i nd wh en the y insti tuted the pol i cy. M or eov er, Kidw el l ’ s c ontenti on that thi s pol i cy w as u n iqu e t o h im is u n su p p or t e d by an y e vid en c e in th e re c or d

. The evi dence shows that the thi rd negat i ve a c ti on that K i dw el lf aced

— th e c an c ell a t i o n of h is C O P S U n it as si g nm ent

— h ad n ot h in g t o d o w ith h is p u rp or te d ly p r o t e c t e d s p e e c h

. In d e e d , T h o ma s o n b e g a n c o n t e mp lat in g t h e m er ge r of th e C O P S a n d P O P U n its in J une 200 7

— w ellbefore the fi r st instan ce of K idw ell ’s pu rporte dlypro tect ed speech. H e ul ti m ate l y deci ded to mer g e th e uni ts i n May 20 08 , a l l ev i at i ngthe m ou n tin g str ai n on a departm ent in the m i dst o f eco nom i c chal l enges and m anpow erl oss es, and al so fre ein g K id w ell to foc u s s o lely on h is s u p er vis or y ro le i n the patro lse cti on. Kidw el lquesti ons th e i dea thata m er g erwas c o nt empl at ed fr o m the i nc ept i o n o fthe POP U ni t in J une 200 7 be cause the depar tm en t i ssued a new CO PS U nit p oli cy in Janu ary 2008
. Bu t Th om ason ’s22 N o. 11

- 1929 uncontro ver ted te sti m ony shows that the m an pow er an d ec o no m i c i ss ue s th at ul ti m at ely ne ce ss i ta te d the m erger d id n ot su rface un tilthat sam e m ont h. Furth er, i ntra departm entalr esi sta nce s l owed the m er gerpro cess f orse ver alm onths. Eventual l y, however, Thom aso n effecte d the m er ger, w h ich had the anci l l ar y e ffect of el i m i nati ng Kidw el l ’ s pos i ti on. There i s no ev i dence th at th is d ec isio n w as ba s e d o n K id w ell’s p u rp or te d ly prot ecte d speech; r ather, the deci si on w as base d on w hol l y unre l ate d, i nter veni ng ev ents. The unde r l y i ngf ac ts o fthe f o ur thne g ative a ct i o n, nam el y, Kidw el l ’ s tw o- day suspensi on in Se ptem ber20 08 as a r esult ofhi s j ourne y t o Ch i cago with a ci vi l i an to pi c ku p a n e xp l o s i v e de v i c e , a r e l i k e wi s e u nd i s pu t e d. Ki dwel l at te m pts to m i ti g at e hi s r o l e i n th i s incident by c laim in g that the expl osi ve devi ce was m er el y a pi ece offi re w or k, but he co nveni entl y l eave s o ut the f act that h e d id n otkn ow it w as a fire w or k u n til h e a r r i v ed in Ch i cago . In f act, the in form ant who al er ted Kidw el lto th e p resence ofthi s devi ce ini ti al l y desc ribed the devi ce as a “ g r en ade

. . . tha t woul d have t he po te nt i alo fe xplo ding. ” Therefor e, thi s i l l

- advi sed j ou rney

— the f acts ofw hi ch are not in dis pu te

— w as u nq ue stionab ly d an gero us a nd, a s no ted byTho m as o n in h i s m emor an dum to K i dw el l, was m ade in vi ol ati on o fdepartm entalpol i cy. Fina lly, the fi fth neg ati ve acti on, wh i ch co nsi ste d of the depar tm ent’ s a tte m pt to te rm i nate K i dw el l, was clearly th e resu lt ofK idw ell ’s f ail ur e t o p ass a fi tn ess-for-N o. 11

- 1929 23

The othe r two t er m i nat i on c har ge s thatthe depa rt m en t 2 fil ed againstK idw el l incl ud ed his tr ip t o Bu rl ington, Iowa, and his rol e i n the acc ident during the high- speed chas e. N ota b ly, K id w ell w as no t p u nish ed for the se in c i d en ts out s i de o fthe f ac tthatthe y f or m ed the bas i s f or par tofthe d ep artm en t’ s term ina tion case aga inst him

. W e w ill a d d ress K idw el l’ s com plaint s abou t how the dep art m ent hand le d the i nve stiga t i on i nt o the s e i nc i dent s i n the ne xts ec t i on; how ever, w e pause her e t o note that the arbitra tor f ound that a sev en -da y susp en sion w as w arr an ted f or K id w ell’ s role in th ese i ncidents

. Such a punishm ent und ers cores the f act that Kidwel l ’ s own be havi or

### —not hi s pu rportedly protec ted speec h

— se rved as a b a sis for the negati ve acti ons t aken a g a i n s th i m. duty e va l ua ti o n. Pr es um ab l y a s a sou r ce o fv i ndi ca ti o n, 2 K id w ell c i t e s t h e a rb itr at or ’s fin d in g t h at K id w ell sh ou ld not be su bj ect t o a n y d iscipli ne f or refus ing to turn o ve r Dr
. Ca m pi o n’ s fi tn es s- f o r - duty re po r t be ca us e th e conse nt form was ove rl y b ro ad. But K i dw el lhas f ai l ed to sh ow h ow th at find in g h as an y s ign ifica n c e in th is c a s e . T he r e i s n o e v i de nc e t ha tthe de pa r t men t ’ s a t t e mpt to fi re Kidw el lf orhi s ins u b or dinat i on in f ai l i ng to turn o verthe fitn ess- f or - du ty re portwas a pr ete xt f or h is h av in g e n ga ge d in p u rp or te d ly p ro te c te d sp ee c h . I f an yt h in g, th e e vid en c e d em on st ra te s t h at if K id w ell ha d pa ss ed a fitne ss - f o r - duty e va l ua ti o n a t an y po i nt i n ti m e, he would have bee n al l owed to r etur n to wor k

. Ev enthe a rbi tratorno te d tha t Ki dwel l ’ s co nti nued em p loy m en t was bas ed on hi s abi l i ty to pass a fi tness
- f or - du ty evaluati on ( albei t without having to sig n a b ro ad co n se n t f o r m ) . I t w as on ly a fte r K id w ell24 N o. 11

- 1929

re fused to co oper ate wit h t he depart m ent’ s e ff or ts to have hi m decl ar ed fit f orduty that Thom aso n to ok acti on ( at Eise n h au er ’ s di re cti on)
. Rega rdl ess o fwh ether K i dw el l w as w i thi n hi s ri ghts to re fuse t o c oo perat e, not hi ngi n the de par tment ’ s co nduc t i ndi ca te s th atthe ac tio n it to ok w as in re sp on se to K id w ell’s p u rp or te d ly pr o te ct ed spe ec h. Insu m , n on e o f th e e m p loy m en t a c tio n s t h at K id w ell com pla i ns about fo l l owed clo se on the h eel s ofh i s purpor tedl y pr ote cted s p eech. M or eov er, the conte xt i n w hi ch these act i ons w er e t ake n defi es any a rgum ent that they w er e r el ate d to h is speech. Rather, i t i s a pp ar ent that si gni fi cant inter veni ng ev ents

— not the l eas t o fwh i ch w as K i dw el l ’ s o w n nega ti ve behavi or

— tha to c c ur re d afterK id w ell ’ s a cts ofpurport edl y pr ote cted s peech w er e the cause o fthe negat i ve ordi sci plinaryem plo ym en t actio ns tha t he r ec ei ve d. The r efo r e, the t i m i ng ofev en ts i n thi s ca se does not gi ve ri se to an i nfe re nce th atKi dwel l ’ s spe ec h was a mot i va tingf ac to r i n a ny o fth e e mp l o y me n ta c t i o n s t a k e n a g a i n s th i m.

B. Fai l ure t o Fol l ow Pro cedures K i d w el lal so ar gues that the depar tm ents offi ci al s’ f ai l ure to f ol l ow es ta bl i shed proc edures gi ves ri se to an i nfe re nce that hi s purpor tedl y prot ected speech was a m oti vating f acto r i n two ofthe te rm in ati on char ges fi l ed aga i nst him

. S peci fi cal l y, Kidw el lco ntends that the depar tm ent offici al s di d not fol l ow the r equi re m ents ofthe U ni f or m Pol i ce Offi cer s’ Dis ci plinaryA ct ( “ UPO DA” ) , 5 0 I l l

. Co mp. S tat
. 72 5/ 1, ets eq . , w h en itN o. 11

- 1929 25 que st i o ne d hi m a fte r the Bur ling to n, I o wa i nc i den t, a nd th at th e offici als f ail ed to f oll ow the d ep artm en t’s in te rn al p oli c ies w h en inv es tig at in g K id w ell’s role in the a cci dent duri ng the hi gh- speed chase

. I n a no the r c o nt e xt, we s t a t e d tha ta n e mpl o y e r ’ s “ sys t e ma t i c ab a n d o n me n to fi t s h i r i n gp o l i c i e s i s c i r c u mst an ti a l e vid en c e” of a re ta liat or y m ot ive
. R udin , 42 0 F
. 3d at 72 3; s e eal s o Gia co le t t o v. Am ex Zi ncCo. , 95 4 F
. 2d 424, 427 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92) ( hol ding that the em plo yer ’ s devi ati on fr o m i ts e st ab l ished pr o ce dur e when te r m i na tingthe p lai nt iff w as circu m s t an tial evid en ce of retali ation). N eve rthel ess , we do not re qu ire thatan e m plo yer ri gi dlyadhere to pro ceduralgui del i nes in or der t o av oid an infe re nce o fr eta l i ati on. Instea d, w e l oo k for p retext i n the f or m of “a disho nest expla nati on, a lie ra therthan an odd i ty oran e rr or . ” K ulu m a ni v . B lue C ross B lue Shie ld Ass’ n , 22 4 F
. 3d 681, 68 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)
. M or eove r, wh en i nd ependent surr ounding ci rc u m sta nces in d ica te th at th e e m p loy ee ’s p er for m an c e w as se riou sly defi ci ent a nd worthy ofdi sci plinaryact i on, a pro cedural abn orm ali ty w il l not suffi c e to establish a retaliatory m o t i v e. SeeFort ie r v. A m er it ec h M obil e C om m c’ns, Inc. , 16 1 F.3d 110 6, 1114 ( 7th Cir. 1998). U POD A pro vi des ce rt ai n proc eduralpro tect i ons to p olic e o ffice rs w h o a re su bj ec t t o d isc ip lin e . 50 Ill. Com p. S tat
. 725/1. Spec ificall y, p oli ce offi cers w ho are i nter ro gat ed afterall ege dlyvi ol ating depart m ental po l i cymustb e g i ve n wr i tt enno ti ce o fthe nature o fthe i nvest i gat i on be i ng condu cted, the opportunity t o have an atto rneypre sent, and re aso nabl e o pp or tuni ti es f or26 N o. 11

- 1929

re st
. Se ei d. 72 5/3. 1-
. 11. U POD A defi nes a n “i nter ro gati o n ” a s “ th e q u e s t i o n i n g o f a n o ffi c e r p u r s u a n t to t he f or m ali nvest iga ti on pro cedures ofthe re specti ve St ate age ncy o r l oca lgo ver nm entaluni t in connecti on with an al l ege d v i ol ati on of such age ncy’ s or unit ’ s rul es wh i ch m ay be the bas i s forfi ling c harg es see ki ng hi s o r her suspensi on, r em ova l, o r disc h ar ge. ” Id. 725/2(d ). I m p ortantl y, thi s d efi ni ti on “does not incl ud e quest i oni ng ( 1) as par t o f an i nf o r m ali nqui r y o r ( 2) r el at i ngt o min o r i nfr ac ti o ns o fa g ency rul es whi chmay be no te d o n the offi cer ’ s r eco rd but w hi ch m ay not i n them selv es re sul t in re m ova l, di sc h ar ge orsuspensi on in exces s o f 3 days

. ” Id. A “fo r m al inve sti g at i o n” i s defi ne d a s “the p r o c e s s o fi n v e s t i g a t i o n o r d e r e d b y a c o mma n d i ng offic er d u rin g w h ich th e q u es tio n i n g of a n offic er is i ntended to gather evi dence o f m i sco nd uct wh i ch m ay b e t h e b as i s f o r f ilin g c h ar ge s s ee kin g h is or h er rem ov al, disc harg e o r suspensi on in excess o f3 days. ” Id. 725/2(c). I n contr as t, an “ i nfo rm alinquir y” i s defi ned as a m eet i ng be tw een s up er vi sory per sonnela n d an offi cer “u p on w h om an alleg at ion of m isc o n d u c t h as co m e . . . , the purpos e o fwh i ch m eet i ng i s t o m ed iat e a ci ti zen com p lai nt or d iscus s the f acts to det erm ine w he th er a f or m ali nvest i gat i on s houl d be co m m enced. ” Id. 725/2(b). H er e, K id w ello nl y v aguel y a rgues that he w as not g i ve n the pr o te ct i o ns g ua r an te ed byUPODA dur i ng the invest i gat i on into hi s a cti ons du ring the Burl i ngto n i nc i de nt
. T he o nly s pe c i fi c a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n o fUPO DA to w hi ch Kidw el lpoi nts i s a n i nfo rm alco nver sat i on he h a d wit h Th o mas o n a ft e r the i nc i de nth a d o c c ur r e d. Ki dwe l lc o nt e nd s tha tT ho mas o n r e l i e d o n tha tc o nv e r s a-N o. 11

- 1929 27 ti on wh en fi l i ng o ne o fthe te rm i nati on char ges ag ai nst hi m a yea r l ate r. Kidw el lar gues that thi s was im p ro p er because Kidw el lneve r re cei ved U POD A pro cedural prot ecti ons. But K i dw el lm ake s no eff ort to es tabl i sh w h ich pro tect i ons w er e v i ol ate d orhow any such v i ol ati ons w er e a p re text f ora re tal i ato rym oti ve i nstea d of si m pl y e r r o r s. W i th o utmor e, Ki dw ell ’ s co nc l us o r y a r g um ent f ai l s. M or eov er, Kidw el lcannotes tabl i sh that h i s questi oni ng was pa rt o f a “f or m ali nvest i gat i on” ( as defined und erU POD A ) , and th u s that UP OD A pro tect i ons eve n apply. Ind eed, o therthan Thom aso n ’s co nver sat i on wi thKi dw ell afte r Ki dwel l ’ s r etur n fr o m Bur l i ng to n, ther e i s no ev i dence thatThom aso n o rder ed an i nvesti g at i on pur su an t to de par tment alpo l i cy . And t o the extent that K id w el lar gues that hi s co nver sat i on w i th Thom aso n coul d i tse l fbe const rued as a “f or m al i n ve st iga tio n,” th at arg u m en t fa ils. A s n ot ed ab ov e, a form al inv estigation req uires th at t h e i nt en t of su p ervi sor y per sonneli n questi oni ng a pol i ce o ffi cerbe to gather ev id en ce that for m s the bas i s o fthe charg es “se eking [t he o ffi cer ’ s] r em ova l, di schar ge orsuspensi on i n excess of3 d ay s. ” Id. 72 5/2( c)
. There i s no ev i dence in the record to sup p or t the con clusion that Th om ason ’s conve rs ati on with K i dw ell w as i ntended to gather evi dence t o seek Kidw el l ’ s r em ova l, di schar ge, o r suspensi on. True, t he Burl i ngto n, I owa i nci dent f or m ed the b asi s foro ne o fthe charg es aga i nst Kidw el lwh en th e d ep artm en t so u g ht his term ination a year later, b u tth e e v i d e n c e sh o ws th a tb e t we e n th e t i me o fTho m as o n’ s co nv er sa ti o n wi thKi dwe ll abo utthe28 N o. 11

- 1929 B urlington i nc iden t and the tim e th e c h a rges w ere fi l ed, Thom aso n w as open to K id w ellr etur ni ng to w or k i fhe cou ld pass a fi t- f or - du ty evaluati on. There

for e, th er e is n o e vid en c e fro m w h ich a re as on ab le f actfi nd erco uld infe r that Thom aso n’s co nver sat i on w i th Kidw el lwas an at tem p t to gl ean e vi dence fro m wh ich Ki dwel lc o ul d b e te r m i na te d. Ins te ad, tha t co nver sat i on was atbes t a n “i nfo rm ali nquir y, ” a nd theref or e Kidw el lwas never“inter ro gat ed” a s d efi ned by U P O D A
. Se ei d. 72 5/2( d)

. The pr o ce dur alpr o te ct i o ns t h e r ein sim p ly d o not ap p ly in this case , and K idw ell ’s ar gum ent f ai l s. Ki dwel la l so c o nt en ds th atthe po l i ce de par tment o f f i c i a l s f a i l e d t o f o l l o w d e p a r t me n t a lp o l i c y wh e n i nve st i g at i nghi s r o l e in the a cc i den t th ato cc ur r ed dur i ng th e h i g h- s pe e d c a r c ha s e . T he Da nv i l l e P o l i c e De partm ent Pol i cy M anual st ate s that, “[ w ] henevera pol i ce vehi cl e i s invol ved i n a v ehi cl e a cci den t w hi ch i nvol ves dea th, ser i o us i nj ur y, o r maj o r pr o per tyda m ag e, the o n duty s upe r vi so r wi l lr eque stthe a cc i den t t o b e i nvest i gat ed by ei thert h e V er m i l i on County Sher i ff’ s Dep ar tm en t o r th e Illino is St at e P o l ice .” A lth ou gh th e a c c ident certa in l y r esul ted i n ser i ous inj ury and m aj or pr o pe r t y da mag e , Ki dwe l la r g ue s tha t Th o mas o n’ s a pp ointm en t of D etec tive Stark

— a Danvi l l e pol i ce o ffi cer

— to head t h e e nsui ng i nvest i gat i on vi ol ate d dep ar tm en tal policy and therefore is evi d en ce of a r etaliatory m oti ve. Detecti ve S tar k’ s a pp oi ntm ent was undoubtedlya te ch ni ca lv i o l at i on o fthe wri tt enpo l i cyt er m s. ButN o. 11

- 1929 29 uncontro ver ted te sti m ony fro m Thom ason shows that th i s po l i cywas c o ns true d t o meantha t ani ndepen den t l aw e nfo r c e men ta g e nc y wo ul d b e a pp o i nt e d t o h e ad ani nv es ti g at i o n o nl y i fa de ath o cc ur r ed i n a n a cc i den t involving a p oli ce an d a civi li an veh icl e. B ecau se th ere w er e no deaths that re sul ted fro m the acc id ent, Tho m aso n saw no nee d to appointan o utsi de age ncy. A s a notherci rcui t has st ate d, “[ i ] t i s g en er al l y foran em plo yerto i nter p ret i ts own pol i ci es. ” R ichey v. C ity of Independenc e, 54 0 F.3d 77 9, 78 6 (8th C ir. 20 08 ) . K i d w ell does n ot ar gue that thi s co nstr ucti on o fthe pol i cy w as d ispa rately ap p li ed or th at it w as d one fo r a reta li atory pu rpos e. W hat i s m or e, si m plysho w i ng a vi ol ati on o f pol i cy i s no t e nough. Kidw el lm ust point to “a di shones t expla na tio n [ f ordevi ating fro m pol i cy] , a l i e r atherthan an o d d ity o r an er ro r. ” Kul um ani, 2 2 4 F
. 3 d a t6 8 5
. He does not do so

. A dd i ti onal l y, Kidw el lcannotd em onst ra te a r eta l i atory m oti ve base d on a techni calvi ol ati on o fpol i cy when th e ci r cumst an ce s r ev ea la pattern o fde fi ci en t ac ti o ns o n h i s par t. F o r e xa m pl e, i n For tierw e a c kn ow led ge d th at “a n em p loy er ’s fa ilu re to follow p olic ies
. . . m ay show .

. . thatthe em plo yer ’ s a sse rt ed re aso n f orte rm i nati on ( defi ci ent p er for m ance) m i ght b e pr etextual. ” Fo rtier, 1 6 1 F
. 3 d a t 1 1 1 4
. I n th a t c a s e , h o weve r, we f ound that e ven i fthe em plo yerhad faile d to f o l l o w i ts e st ab l i sh ed po l i ci es whent er m i na ting th e pl aint i ff, b ecau se o th ere vi den ce s ho wed tha t th e em plo yerbel i eve d that th e pl ainti ff’ s per f or m ance was “se ri ousl y defi ci ent, ” a s in d icated by pr evi ous warni ngs and counsel i ng se ssi ons gi ven t o the pl ai n tiff, a techni cal30 N o. 11

- 1929 vi ol ati on o fpol i cy w as i nsuffici ent t o gi ve ri se to an i nfe re nce o fa re tal i ato rym otiv e. Id. Th is case is sim il ar; b y the t i me the h i g h- s pe e d c ha se a c c i de nto c c ur r e d, K i dwe l lh a d b e e n i s s ue d a wr i t t e n r e pr i man d, a dm oni shed verbal l y, and suspended fo r tw o days. Li ke th e empl o y er i n Fo rtier, he r e th e po l i ce de par tment offi ci al s had dete rm i ned

— i nde pen den tly of th e hi g hspeed chase acc id ent invest i gat i on

— th at K idw ell ’s perf o r ma n c e w a s s e r i o us l y d e fi c i e n t
. U n d e r s u c h c i r c u msta nces, Thom aso n’s f ai lu re to appoi nt an outsi de age ncy to head the acci dent i nvest i gat i on i s no t s uffi ci ent t o ra i se an i nfe re nce o fa re tal i ato rym oti ve.

III. K id w ell h as faile d to d em on st ra te th at h i s p u rp or te d ly p ro te c te d sp ee c h w as atlea st a m o tiv at in g fa c to r in th e de fe nd a nt s ’ n e g a t i v e e mpl o y men ta c t i o ns t a k en ag ains t hi m . S pec i fi ca l l y, Ki dwel l ’ s su spi ci o us - ti m i ng ar gum en t f ai l s be ca us e hi s co m pl aine d- o fe m pl o y m en t acti o ns di d no t f o l l o w c l o se l y o n th e he el s o f hi s p urpo r tedly pr o te ct ed spe ec h, a nd b ec au se s i g ni fi ca nti nter veni ng ev ents

— es pec i al l y Ki dw el l ’ s o wn defi ci en t perf or m ance

— se par at ed Ki dwel l ’ s spe ech fr o m the n eg at ive em p loy m en t a c tio n s. A d d itio n ally , K id w ell has f ai l ed to dem onst ra te that any devi ati ons fro m pol i cy

— if th ey oc c u rre d atall

— we re d i sh o ne sta nd pr et ex tu al

. M o r eo ve r, b ec au se i nde pen den t su r r o undi ng ci rcum sta nces dem onst ra te that hi s per f or m ance was se r i o us l y de fi ci en t an d wor thy o fdi sc i pl i na r y a ct i o n, K i dw el lcannotpoi nt to te chnic al devi ati ons fro m pro -N o. 11

- 1929 31 cedure to r aise an infe re nce o fr eta l i ati on. Fo r these r easons, we A FFIRM .

5- 22- 12