## In the



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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1625 M ARK R UJAWIT Z, Plaintif f-A ppell ant, v. T IMO THY M ARTIN , f o r m erS ec r et ary o fthe Dep ar tm ent o fTra nsport ati on o fthe St ate o fI l l i noi s, D efend a nt-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC ourt fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:07- cv-00427- MJ R- CJ P

—Mi ch ael J . Reagan, Judge .
A RGUED J AN UA RY 13, 2009

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 2, 2009

Befo re B AUER, P O SNER an d R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu it Judge
. Mar kRuj awi tz s ue d Ti m o thy M ar ti n, S ecr eta ry of the I l l i noi s Dep ar tm ent ofTra nsport atio n ( I DO T), und er 42 U
. S. C. § 1983 , cl ai m i ng that h is substa nt ive proper ty ri ght t o em plo ym ent had be en vi ol ate d. The dis tr i ct c ourtg ra nted M ar ti n’s m oti on t o dism i ss hol ding that ther e was no property r ight prese nt. On app eal, Ruj aw i tz ar gues thata f avo rabl e pr oce du ra l2 N o. 08

- 1625

r ul i ngc o nv er te d hi s at
- wi l ls ta tu s to t enur e, e st ab l i sh i ng s u c ha r i g h t
. F o rth e f o l l o win gr e a s o n s , w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND Fo r approxi m ate l y thi rt een y ear s, Ruj aw i tz w or ked for I DOT a s a Ci vi lEngi ne erI V, an at
- wi l lpos i ti o n. Thi s r un, how eve r, cam e t o a hal t o n O c to b er 27, 20 04, wh en Ruj aw i tz w as disc harg ed f or unlawfulco nd uct, di sr up ti ve conduct and f ai l ure to fol l ow a superv i sory di re cti ve. The ter m in ati on was pro m pted by Ruj aw i tz’ s f ai l ure to abi de by an i nj uncti on, wh i ch r equi re d h im t o re m ai n at l e a s t1 0 0 fe e tfr o m h i s e x - g i r l fr i e n d , a l s o a nI D O T e mplo yee . A di sc i pl i na r y pa ne lr ev i ewe d the di sc ha r g e an d f o und that al though no t “ tot al l y without f aul t, ” Ruj aw i tz did not vi o l at e th e i nj unc tion be ca us e th e co nt ac t wi thhi s ex gi r l fr i e nd wa s i nc i de nt a l
. T he p a ne la l s o f o un d tha t R uj aw itz ’s d u e p ro c es s w a s v iola te d be c au se ID O T d id no t p r o v i d e s u ffi c i e n t d o c u me n t a t i o n s u p p o r t i n gt he charg es. W i th the se fi nd i ngs, the panel r eco m m ended that te rm i nati on was to o seve re and that a l ess erl eve l ofdi sci pline was m or e a pp ro pri ate
. M ar tin c o nc ur r ed wi ththe pa ne l ’ s r eco m m en dat i o ns and or dered that : ( 1) R uj aw i tz be r ei nstat ed; ( 2) the disch ar g e be c ha ng ed to s us pen si o n wi th o utpa y ( i ncl ud i ng ba ck- pay) f ora cer tain peri od ; a nd ( 3) Ruj aw i tz be t ra nsfer re d to a di ffer ent o ffi ce. Ruj aw i tz then bro ught thi s ci vi l ri ghts action , under 42 U
. S. C. § 1 983, ag ai nst M ar tin, cl ai m i ng tha t hi s s ub-N o. 08

- 1625 3 sta nti ve du e pr oce ss ri ght t o property w as vi ol ate d w hen he was denie d back- pay and co nstr ucti vel y di scharged by the t ra nsfer. Ruj aw i tz ar gued that I DO T’s deci si on t o uti l i ze the di sci plinarypaneland M ar ti n’s co ncurr ence w i th the pan el ’ s r eco m m endati ons endow ed hi m with substa nti ve du e p ro cess r i ghts. M ar ti n m ove d to dism i ss th e ac ti o n; the di st r i ctc o ur t g ra nt ed M ar tin’ s m o ti o n, hold ing th at th e p an el’ s recom m en d ation an d M artin’s co nc ur r en ce di d no t es tabl i sha p rop er tyr i g hti n c o nti nued em plo ym ent, sin c e at m ost, i t r ei nstat ed Ruj aw i tz as an at
- w i l lem plo yee. T h e d i str i ct c ourtal so hel d that no pro tect able, co ntra ctualpro pertyi nter estexi ste d because I DO T’s pol i cy m anualexpressly s tat ed as m uch and tha t the r e wa s no a g r e e men t g i v i ng Ruj a wi tz a tenure d-em plo yee st atus. Th i s t i mely a pp e a lf o l l o we d.

I I . DI S C US S I ON On app eal, Ruj aw i tz ar gues that the dis tr ict cour t e rr ed i n con c l ud i ngtha th e h a d n o p r o t e c t e d p r o pe r ty i nt e r est i n h i s co nt i nue d e m pl o y m en t wi thI DOT a nd b y g rant i ng M ar tin ’s m ot ion to d ism iss h is du e pr oc es s claim . Sp ec ifica l l y, Ruj awi tz a r g ue s th atb ec au se I DOT em p lo y ed th e d iscipli na ry pa ne l, w hich ultim ately reversed Ruj aw itz’s disc harg e, and M ar ti n adopted the panel ’ s r eco m m endati o n, a s ubs ta nt i ve pr o per tyr i g htwas e st abl i sh ed. Our re vi ew of a di str i ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fa m oti on t o dism i ss is d e n ov o. A nd o nissa m y v . H e w lett-P a ck a rd C o ., 54 7 F
. 3d 841, 84 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. W hen r uling o n a m ot ion to dism i ss und er R u le 1 2(b) ( 6) , we accept al lwell

- ple aded4 N o. 08

- 1625 al l ega ti ons as tr ue and d ra w al lr eas onabl e infe re nces infav or of R uj aw itz
. Id
. In or d erto m ake hi s due pro cess cl ai m , Ruj aw i tz m u stfirstd em on st ra te th ath e h ad a c o n st itu tio n ally p ro te c te d p ro p er ty int er es t. Bord e rv. Ci ty of Cryst al La ke, 7 5 F .3d 27 0, 27 3 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ); M oss v. M arti n , 47 3 F
. 3d 694, 70 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) (c ita tio ns o m i tte d). W e l oo k t o I l l i noi s l aw t o deter m i ne wh etherhe ha d a subst anti ve p ro p er ty int er es t in h i s e m p loy m en t w ith ID O T
. Mo ss, 473 F. 3d at 700. U nd erI l l i noi s l aw , a perso n has a proper ty i nter esti n his j ob w here he ha s a l egi ti m ate ex pec tat i o n o fhi s co nt i nue d e m pl o y m en t ba se d o n a l eg itim at e c laim of en tit lem en t. Id
. ( ci ti ng Kre c e k v . Bd. of P o lice C o m m ’rs of La G ran ge P a rk, 64 6 N
. E.2 d 1314, 13 18 ( I l l
. App
. Ct
. 1 9 9 5 ) )
. “ To s ho w a l e g i t i mat e e xp e c t a t i on o fc o n t i n u e d e mpl o y me n t, a p l a i n t i ffmu s ts h o w a spe ci fi c o r di na nc e, s ta te l aw, c o nt r ac t o runde r st an di ng l i m i ti ng the a b il i ty ofthe a s tat e o r sta te enti ty to disc harg e hi m . ” M o ss , 47 3 F
. 3d at 700 ( quoti ng K recek, 64 6 N
. E
. 2d at 1318-19). W e be gi n by sta ti ng tha t the re i s nei theran o rdi nance, a s tat e l aw , noran e xpress em plo ym en t ag re em ent that w oul d up gr ad e R uj aw i tz’ s s tatus fro m at
- w i l lto te nure. I DO T’s pol i cy m anualexpre ssly stat ed that i t di d not c on st itu t e a nem p loy m en t c on tr ac t. R uj aw itz ac kn ow ledges thi s b uta r g ue s tha tI DOT ab a nd o ne d thi s di sc laim er (co n ve rt in g h is a t-w ill st a tu s t o t en u re ) w h en it c on vened the disc i plinarypanel, and w hen the panel i ssued a f avo rabl e r eco m m endati on that M ar ti n agr eed w i th. These occur re nces, Ruj aw i tz ar gues, i m pli edl y g aveN o. 08

- 1625 5

r i se t o mor e th ana uni l at er ale xpectat iono fc o nt i nuing em plo ym ent. W e d isagree; at m ost, R ujaw itz rel ies on th e d iscipli na ry panel as a proce du ra lguarante e. Pro ceduralguar antee s, w hether rel i ed on o r not, do notes tabl i sh a proper ty intere s t prot ecte d un d er the Fou rteen th A m en d m en t’s D u e P ro c es s C lau se . S ee M iyl er v. Vil l. of E . Ga lesburg, 51 2 F .3d 89 6, 89 8 (7 th C i r . 2 00 8). W e h av e p re vio u sly hel d that al though the l ack of gr i evanc e procedures we i g hs s t r o ng l y a g a i ns ta fi nd i ngo ff o r - c a us e e mp l oym ent, i t doe s no t m ean that the ex iste nce o fsuch pro ced u re s in d ica te s fo r-c au se em p loy m en t. B o rder, 75 F. 3d at 275. Thi s i s e sp eci al l y t rue i n l i ght o fI DO T’s contr actual disc l aim er . Id
. W e fi nd mer i tl es s Ruj awi tz ’ s ar g um en t that hi s ca se is di ffer ent b ecause the proce du re was actual l y fo l l owed
. The di str i ct c ourtpro perl y hel d that th e en ti tl em ent m ust be di re ctl y t o the j ob

— nam ely som ething that re quir ed Ruj aw i tz to be fi re d on ly for cause

— an d n ott o t h e d isc ip lin ar y p ro c ed u re . Id .; Cam pe l l v. Ci ty of

Cham paign , 940 F.2d 1 1 1 1 , 1 113 (7th Cir. 1991 ) ; Farmerv. La ne, 864 F.2d 473 , 478 (7th C ir. 1988). Ruj aw i tz onl y points t o the use o fthe proce du re . The pre se nceo fsuch di sci plinarypro cedures does not est abl i sh a proper ty ri ght in continued em plo ym en t, despit e what Ruj aw i tz m ay subj ecti vel y b el i eve , n eithe r does the use of th os e p ro c ed u re s. T h e p r e su m p tio nin I l l i noi s i s that e m plo ym ent i s a t- w i l l, M o ss , 4 73 F. 3d at 700, a n d w e hav e not foun d any ca se w he re a pan el’ s r ev i ew o fa n e m pl o y ee ’ s te r m i na ti o n w as f o und s uffi ci en t to r eb uttha t pr es um pti o n. W ha t Ruj awi tz a r g ue s m i g ht6 N o. 08

- 1625

w el lpro m pt I DO T to sto p giv in g s uch proce du re s t o atwi l le m p loyees. I t se ems tha t he i s try i ngt o pe na l i ze the st at e fo r p ro vid in g h im a p ro c es s th atu ltim at ely goth im his j ob bac k. U se of a p an el r e view , pu rsu an t to I D O T ’s pol i cy, and M ar ti n’s co ncurr ence, ar e no t s uffi ci ent t o est abl i sh a substa nti ve proper ty ri ght.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e A FFIRM th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ism iss al.

4- 2- 09