## 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. 06

- 2866 R OBERT P O W ERS, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. G EORGE E. R I CHA RDS, E TAL ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 04- C- 3024

—Jean ne E . Sc ott, Judge

.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 23, 2008

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 2, 2008

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Rober t Po w er s, a f or m erS tat e ofI l l in ois em plo yee and a m em bero fthe Repu bl i can Party, bro ught thi s ci vi l

- ri ghts sui t under 42 U

. S. C. § 1 983 cl ai m i ng tha t the go ver noro fI l l i nois and his st affvi ol ate d hi s ri ght to f re edom of ass oci ati on w hen they fi re d hi m bec ause ofhi s par ty affi l i ati on. H e a l so ass er ted that the m em ber s o fthe I l l i noi s Ci vi l S er vi ce Com m i ssi on d en ied h im p ro c ed u ra l d u e p ro c es s w h en th ey fired h im w i thout an ad equate pre- depri vati on hea ri ng. The di str i ct2 N o. 06

- 2866

co ur t g r an te d s um m ar y j ud gm enti n f av o r o fa l l de fen dan ts
. Be ca us e Po wer s ca nno t sh o w tha t hi s co ns titut i o n a l r i g h t s w e r e v i o l a t e d , w e a ffi r m. Fr om A ugust thro ugh S ep tem ber20 02 Pow er s was a Deputy Di r ec to r o f th e I l l i no i s Depa r tment o f Cen tr alM an ag ementS er vi ce s ( CM S ) , the “ ce nt r alpr o cur ementa nd ad m in ist r a tiv e s er vic es ag en c y” for t h e s ta te
. See ht tp : // w w w . cm s. i llin ois .gov /c m s/ ab ou t_ c m s/ quick f acts
. htm ( l astvi si ted Oct. 2, 20 08)

. H e was as si gned to work as a l iai so n t o the g o ve r no r ’ s o ffi ce . Acco r di ngt o the de fen dants, duri ng the wan i ng m onths ofGover norGeor ge Ryan’ s a dm in istrat i on, Powers w as part ofa pol i ti cal schem e to ensure thatcer tai n sta te em plo yee s r eta i ned thei r j obs afterGover norRyan, a Repu bl i c an , left offi ce. These em plo yee s had b een appoint ed to f our- yea r ter m s, du ri ng wh i ch theyco uld notbe fi re d except f orpoor perf or m ance. Once thes e t er m s e nd ed, theyco u ld be fire d for a n y rea so n . See 20 IL C S 4 15 /8 b .18 , 8b .19 . Th eir te r m s wer e se t to e xpi r e sh o r tl y a fte r Go ve r no r Ry an, who had de c ided not t o see k r eel ecti on, l eft o ffi ce. Concer ned th at th e n ew g o v e rn or w ou ld n otrea p p oin t t h em , in Sep tem ber 2002 , they attem p ted to f in d a w ay to secu re th eir j ob s. Firs t, th ey res ign e d th eir p os itio n s, os te n sib ly to tak e di ffer ent, non- appoint ed j obs i n the sta te gov er nm ent. A few days l ate r, they re turned to thei r f or m er posi ti ons w i th ne w f our- yea r ter m s. Voi l a! Thei r j obs we r e s e c u r e u n t i l 2 0 0 6 , l o n gi n t o th e n e w g o v e r n o r ’ s t e r m. Pow er s’ s ro l e i n the schem e w as vi tal, but q u ite sim ple : he signed som e of th e pe rson ne l fo r m s r eq uired to ef

fectuat e the tr ansfer s fro m one j ob to anothe r. The pro bl em w as that he di d not hav e the autho ri ty to perm i t theseN o. 06

- 2866 3
tr ansfer s o r to si gn the f or m s. Only CM S’ s Di re cto r

— an d n ot a deputy

— ma y a p p r o v e t r a n s fe r s o f e mpl o y e e s , a nd the Di re cto r re fu sed to si gn the f or m s. Powers knew that th e Di r ec to r woul d no t si g n the a utho r i za ti o ns , a nd so Ri ch ar d s si g ne d hi s na m e i n b o xe s r es er ve d f o r the Dir ecto r’ s s i gnatur e. Shor tl y there after, i n Octobe r 2002 , Pow er s too k a j ob as the Executi ve Se cre tar y o fthe I ll i noi s Ci vi l S er vi ce C o mmi s s i o n . T h e C o mmi s s i o n i s c o mp o s e d o ffi v e C o mm i ssi oner s, and no m or e than thr ee m ay be m em ber s o f the s am e pol i ti calparty. The Com m i ssi on, am ong othe r du ti es, hear s a pp eal s o fst ate em plo yee s r ega rdi ng di sch ar g es , s us pen si o ns , t r an sfer s, a l l o ca ti o ns , lay o ff s an d dem oti ons; m odi fi es t h e Per sonnelRule s when necessar y; and i nvest i gat es possibl e v i ol ati ons ofthe Pers onnel Code

. Acco r di ngt o the o ffi ci alpos i ti o n de sc r i pti o n, the Ex ecuti ve Se cre tar y i s th e chi efadm i ni str ati ve offi cero f the Com m i ssi on a nd , in that capaci ty, am ong othe r du ti es, drafts “m aj orr ule s an d r egul ati ons” and prese nts them t o th e C o mmi s s i o n ; ma k e s r e c o mme n d a t i o n s t o th e C o mm i ss ioner s about how di sputes pr ese nted at hear i ngs shoul d be r eso l ved; enf or ces the Com m i ssi on’ s decision s; d evel ops the budget and app ro ves expend i ture s; co ord ina te s wi tho th erag en ci es on m at te r s r el at i ngto the Pe r so nne l Co de an d Rul es ; reco m m en ds amendment s to the Pe r so nne l Co de; i nt er pr et s the Per so nne l Co de an d Rul es f o r s ta te o ffi ci al s, e m pl o y ee s, a nd mem be r s o fthe publ i c; a nd i nv es ti g at es a l l eg ed vi o l at i o ns o fthe Pe r so nnel Code and Rule s. I n J anuary20 03, Rod Bla goj evi ch, a Dem ocr at, acc ed ed to the g ove rno r’ s o ffi ce. H i s a dm i ni str ati on be gan a n4 N o. 06

- 2866 invest igation i nt o the sta te em p loyees’ sch e m e to sub vert the a pp ointm ent s yst em . I n A pri l 20 03, Go ve rnor Blag oj evi ch’s cou n se l se nt a l ett erto the Com m i ssi on det ai l i ngthe f i ndi ng s o fthe i nv es ti g at i o n a nd c o nc l udi ng th at Pow er s and tw o othe rs w ho had b een w or king in G ov er n or R ya n ’s o ffice “a p p ea r to h av e p lay ed ke y ro les in conc oc ti ng and i m ple m enti ng thi s s chem e. ” Tw o days l a t e r, P o we r s r e c e i v e d a c o py o fth i s l e t t e r, a n d th e C o mmi s s i o n me tt o c o ns i d e r th e a l l e g a t i o n s a g a i n s th i m. At the m eet i ng, t h e Com m i ssi on deci ded to pl ace hi m o n adm i ni s t r a t i v e l e a v e wi th pa y . I n M a y 2 0 0 3 , the Ge ne r al Counsel f or CM S gave the Com m i ssi on an inv est i gat i ve r epo r t th atfur th erde sc r ibe d the s ch eme. The ne xtda y, the Comm i ssion dec i ded to s us pen d Po wer s wi thpa y . The Comm i ss i o ne r s vo te d una ni m o us l y t o a utho r i ze the nC h a i r ma n G e o r g e R i c h a r d s t o h o l d a hea r i n gwi th P o we rs . The Co mm i s s i o ne r s fur the r g r a nt e d R i c ha r ds th e a u th o r i t y t o fi r e P o we r s i fP o we r s d i d n o tc o me f or w ar d w i th excul pator y e vi dence. On M ay 21, 20 03, Ri chards sent Pow er s wri tte n noti fi catio n th at th e C om m iss ion w as co n sid er in g firin g h im be ca us e he fr au dul en tl y s i g ne d p erso nne l f o r m s. The l ett erl i ste d t h e nam es ofpote nti alwitnes ses , i nfo rm ed Pow er s o fthe hear i ng da te, and to l d him thathe ha d the r i g htt o r e s po nd

. R i c ha r ds e nc l o s e d do c ume nt s s up port i ng the acc usati ons, incl ud i ng copie s ofthe perso nnel form s Pow ers signed pu rp orted ly as th e D irector ofCM S. On M ay 29, 20 03, Ri chards m et w i th Powers, r ei ter ate d the a ccusati ons aga i nst him , sho w ed hi m the evi dence, an d i nv i te d Po wer s to r es po nd. Pow ers admi tt ed th atheN o. 06

- 2866 5 signed his nam e in the sp o t r eserve d f or the signa tu re of th e D irecto r ofCM S but went on t o expla i n hi s v er si on ofthe eve nts. A ccor ding to Pow er s, the Dir ecto r approve d the t ra nsfer s but did notwant to s i gn the f or m s, and so re quested thatso m eone i n the Gover nor ’ s o ffi ce s i gn them

. Powers i nsi ste d that pr i or adm i ni str ati ons al so ha d fo ll owed thi s “ proce ss. ” Po w er s, however, di d not d i s p u t e tha t h e s i g n e d h i s n a me a s th e D i r e c t o r C MS wi th o u to ffi c i a l a u th o r i z a t i o n . T h u s , R i c h a r d s r e c o mm ended that C M S fi re hi m , wh i ch i t di d. Pow er s then re cei ved a post- depri vati on hear i ng be f or e a n A dm i ni str ati ve Law J ud ge ( A LJ) w h er e he w as re prese nted by counseland had the o pp or tuni ty to c ond uct di sco ver y, prese n t e vi dence, and cr oss - exam i ne witnes ses ag ai nst hi m. I n No v e mb e r 2 0 0 3 , th e AL J i s s u e d h i s fi n d i n g s an d co n c l u d e d th a tth e C o mmi s s i o n wa s wa r r a n t e d i n fi r i ng Pow er s. I n g r an tings um m ar y j udg m en t for th e defen dan ts , the d is t ric t c ou rtd et er m in ed first th at P ow er s la w fu lly coul d be fi re d fo r hi s pol i ti calaffi l i ati on be cause party l o y al tyi s re leva ntt o the j o b o fExe cut i ve S ec r et ar y o fthe Comm i ss i o n, a nd s ec o nd tha t Power s r ec ei ve d a l l o fthe p r o c e s s h e w a s d u e a t h i s p r e - t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g . We r ev i ew thi s dec i si o n deno vo , s e eArgyropo ulo s v. Ci ty of A l t on , 5 3 9 F

. 3 d 7 2 4 , 7 3 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , a nd a g re e wit h the di strict cour t that Po w er s ca nnot s ucceed on ei ther ofhi s cl ai m s. Po we r s fi r s t a r g ue s tha t he s ub mi t t e d s uffi c i e ntev i den c e d em on st ra tin g th at G ov er n or B lag ojev ich an d h is sta ffvi ol ate d Pow er s’ s rightto fre edom o fas soc i ati on6 N o. 06

- 2866

u n d e r th e F i r s tA me n d me n tw h e n th e y u r g e d th e C o mm i ssi on t o fi re h im forhi s a ffi l i ati on with the Repu bl i can Pa r t y . Al tho ugh the r e i s v i rt ual l y n o e v i de nc e s up p or ti ng a cl ai m that Pow er s w as fi re d b ecause of h is p ol i ti ca l a ffi l i at i o n, the r e i s ampl e ev i den ce i n the record that he was fi re d b ecause he tr i ed to hel p otherem plo yee s re tai n thei r j obs by f al sel y s i gn ing per sonnelf or m s a s th e Di r e c t o r o fCMS

. Cu r i o us l y, h o we v e r, the de fe nd ants ha v e n o tp r e s s e d thi s p o i nta nd i ns t e a d h a v e c o nc e de d, f orthe pu rpos es of th e s um m ar y j ud gm ent m oti on, that th ey w an te d to ge t rid o fP o w er s b ec au se h e is a R ep u b lican. But eve n so , w e agr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtthat po l i ti ca l a ffi l i at i on i s ana ppr o pr i at e r equi r ementf o r the p os i t i on of E x ec u tiv e Se c re ta ry an d th u s P ow er s c ou ld l aw full y b e fi re d sol el y forpart i san r eas ons. Lik e a per petual pi ng -p on g m atch, co ntro l o vergo ver nm ents changes hands fro m o ne pol i ti calp ar ty to an o th era nd b ac ka g ain. Ge ne r al l y, a c hang e i n a dm i ni st r at i o n, wi thi ts corr es po ndi ngs hi ft i n po l i cyg o al s an d pr i o r i ti es , do es no t affec t g o ve rnmente m pl o y ee s. The pol i ti calaffi l i ati on o fm ostem plo yee s doe s no t a ffect the i r ab i l i t y t o do the i r j o b s , a nd a n e w a dmi ni s tr ati on mi g h tv i o l a t e th e F i r s tA me n d me n ti fi tfi r e d th e s e e mplo yee s m er el y b ecause theysupport a d iffer ent pol i ti cal party( ori fi t r efused to hi re appli cants w ho were not loy alis ts of th e g ov er n in g p ar ty ). See B ran ti v. Fin k el , 45 5 U

. S. 507, 513, 515-16 (1980); Elrod v

. Bur ns , 42 7 U .S

. 34 7, 372- 73 ( 1976 )

. S om e j obs , however, can be perf or m ed s a t i s f a c t o r i l y o nl y w hen the e mpl o y e e s up po r t s the a dm i ni str ati on’ s i dea s about pol i cy and gove rni ng. I fthes e j o bs a r e fi l l ed wi the m pl o y ee s who ta k e a v ie w di ffer en tN o. 06

- 2866 7 fro m th e a d m in ist ra tio n, t h en th es e e m p loy ee s c ou ld th w ar t t h e g ov er n m en t’s ab ility to en ac t t h e p olic ie s it h ad be en ele c te d to ad va n c e. T h u s, w h er e p ar ty loya lty is ne c e s s a r y t o e ffe c t i v e l y p e r f or m a j o b , the F i r s tAmen dm en t do es not pr o hibi t th e admi ni st r at i o n fr o m fi r i ng an em p loy ee ba se d o n p ar ty affiliat ion

. SeeBranti, 45 5 U .S. at 5 18 ; Thom pson v. Il l

. D ep’ tof Pr of ’ l Regul at i on , 30 0 F.3d 750 , 755-56 (7th C ir. 2002). Inas se ss in g w h et h er p olit ica l lo ya lty m ay p lay a ro le i n a n e mpl o y me n t d e c i s i o n, we c o n s i d e r wh e the r t he posi ti on r equi re s the em plo yee to exer ci se pol i ti calj ud gm en t b y c ra ftin g p ol i c y, se e M oss v. M arti n , 47 3 F

. 3d 694, 699 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , thati s, wh ether the posi ti on “ authori zes , ei therdi re ctl y o r i nd i re ctl y, m eani ngful i npu t into go ve rn m en t d ec isio n m ak in g on iss u es w h er e t h er e is r o o m f o r p r i n c i p l e d di s a g r e e me n to n g o a l s o r th e i r i mple m entat i on, ” N eko lny v. P a inter, 65 3 F

. 2d 1164, 11 70 ( 7th C ir. 19 81 ); se e also Kiddy-B rown v. Blag ojevi ch , 40 8 F

. 3d 346, 355 ( 7th C ir. 2005)

. W e furtheras k whether the pos i ti on en ta i l s th e ex er ci se o fa s ubs ta nt i ala m o untof poli t i ca l ( as d ist in c t fro m p ro fes sio n a l) d isc re tio n . SeeAlle n v. M arti n , 460 F. 3d 939, 94 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ; R il ey v. Blag ojevi ch , 42 5 F.3d 357, 360 (7th C ir. 2005). Ele cted o ffi ci al s m ust r el y o n offici aldescr i pti ons of i nd i vi du al posi ti ons w hen deci ding w hi ch em p l oye es they m ay and m ay not re pla ce w i th li ke- m i nd ed parti sans. T h u s , a s l o n ga s a n o ffi c i a l d e s cr i p t i o n i s r e l i a b l e , we focus on the i nherent du ti es of the posi ti on as l i st ed in th e d es c rip tio n . See R iley, 42 5 F. 3d at 361. P owers does not d isp u te th at th e o fficia l j ob d es c r i p tio n ac c u ra te ly8 N o. 06

- 2866 expla i ns the r esponsibi l i ti es ofthe Ex ecutive S ecr eta ry, a nd s o o ur a na l y s i s o f hi s j o b du t i e s b e g i ns and e nd s th er e. See A llen , 46 0 F

. 3d at 944. P ow er s c on c ed es th at th e E xecuti ve Sec re ta ry is re sp on sibl e f orpol i cym aki n g, but he conte nd s that pol i ti cal l oyalty is not a nece ssa ryqual i fi cati on f oral l pol i cym ake rs . Although he i s co rr ect that the l abelo f “po l i c y mak e r ” i s n o ta t a l i s manf o r a j o b tha tr equi re s pol i t i c a l l o y a l t y, a r e a di ngo fthe p o s i t i o n de s c r i pt i on re veal s that, f orthe Ex ecuti ve Se cre tar y, the d escri pti on “po l i cy m ak er ” i s m o r e th ana g en er i c l ab el

. Ra th er, the Exe cut i ve Sec re ta r y mustus e po l i ti ca l di sc r et i o n a nd h as th e a b ility to influ en c e im p or ta n t g ov er n m en t d ec isions ab ou t pe rson ne l m att e r s. T he Ex ecu tive Secretary i s r esponsibl e f or d rafti ng and pro posi ng r ule s chang es and m odi fi cation s to the Pe rs onnelCode, wh i ch affects al l s ta te e m pl o y ee s, an d i s ch ar g ed wi tha dvi singthe Com m i ssi on about how i t s houl d re so lve perso nnel disputes

. These re sponsibi l i ti es gi ve the Ex ecutive Secr eta r y a han d i n m aking d ecisions on a w ide ran ge of p ersonneli ssues . The Executi ve Se cre tar y a l so has br oad di sc r et i o n o ve r pe r son ne l matt er s, i nc l udi ng t he a utho r i t y t o de c i de wh i c h c o mpl a i nt s t o p r i o r i t i z e f or i nvest i gat i on, how to enf or ce the Com m i ssi on’ s deci si ons, and how to i nter pret the Pe rs onnelCode. I n al l o fthes e d ec isio n m ak in g a n d d isc r e t i on ar y fu n c tio n s, th er e is ro om f orthe adm i ni str ati on t o l egi ti m ate l y di sagree w i th the Executi ve Se cre tar y’ s pos i ti ons ore x erci se of author i ty , t hus m aki ng pol i ti call oya l ty an appropr i ate j ob qu alific at ion

. See A llen , 460 F .3 d a t 94 5; Am e r i ca nos v. C a rter, 74 F.3 d 13 8, 14 2 (7 th C ir. 19 96 ); Sel ch v. Le tts , 5 F. 3dN o. 06

- 2866 9 10 40 , 10 4 7 ( 7 t h C ir. 19 93 ); Tom cz ak v

. Ci ty of Chi cago , 76 5 F. 2d 633, 64 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 85)

. M or eov er, the Ex ec u tive Se cre tar y r epres ents th e C om m i ssi on a t m eet i ngs with sta te offi ci al s a nd with o thero rg an i zati ons outsi de of sta te gov er nm ent t o re sol ve questi ons on per sonnel m att er s a nd to i nter pret the Pe rs onnelCode. Com m unica ti ngthe po si ti o ns o fthe Co m m i ss i o n a nd i nt er pr et i ng st at e l a w t o th o s e i n s i d e a n d o u t s i d e o fth e g o v e r n me nt re qu i r e p o l i t i c a l s e ns i t i v i t y, a nd the a dmi ni s t r a ti on w ou ld w an t a loya l p ar t isa n, w h o w ou ld ac c u ra te ly re flec t it s p os itio n, in th is ro le. See A llen , 46 0 F

. 3d at 945. W e c on c l ud e that the Executi ve Se cre tar y has br oad d i s c r e t i o n t o ma k e p o l i c y, s e tp r i o r i t i e s , i n t e r p r e tth e l a w, an d s pea ko n b eh al fo fthe Com m issi on, a nd tha t i fthe Exe cut i ve S ec r et ar y is a po l i ti ca l e ne m y o fthe s i tt i ng g o ve r no r, the Exe cut i ve S ec r et ar y c o ul d ha m perthe i m ple m entat i on o fthe go ver nor ’ s l egi ti m ate pol i ci es. Theref or e, the adm i ni str ati on m ay re q u i re the perso n w ho fi l l s the posi ti on t o perf or m tho se re sponsibi l i ti es co ns i st en tl y wi ththe a dm i ni st r ati o n’ s po si ti o ns a nd pri or i ti es, and i t i s e nti tl ed to fi l l the p os iti on with an em plo yee wh o i s a m em bero fthe sam e pol i ti calparty an d w h o w ill be lo ya l to t h e g ov er n or an d ad va n c e h is orherpol i ci es. A ccor ding to Pow er s, the ro l e o fthe Com m i ss ion i s t o en su r e t ha t per so nne l de ci si o ns a r e ba se d o n mer i t an d ar e unaffecte d by pol itica l co nsi derat i ons. Powers al so po i nt s o uttha t th e Comm i ss i o n i s i nde pen den t o fthe g o ve r no r, tha t th e Comm i ss i o n mustb e co m po se d of no m o r e th anthr ee mem be r s o fthe s ame po l i ti ca l pa r ty, a nd10 N o. 06

- 2866 th atthe Exe cut i ve S ec r et ar y ’ s al l eg i an ce l i es wi ththe Com m i ssi on, notthe gov ernor . Thus, he c oncl ud es that th e Exe cut i ve S ec r et ar y po si ti o n i s po l i ti ca l l y “ n e u t r a l ” an d that affi l i ati on with a par ti cul arparty is not a val i d requir em ent forthe p os ition. But thi s a rgum ent m i sse s th e po i nt
. J u s tb e c a u s e th e l a w th a tth e b i

- p a r t i s a n C o mm i ssi on a nd the E x ec u tive S ecr eta ryar e char ged with i m ple m enting ai m s t o ensure thatthe m ostqual i fi ed peo pl e r ec ei ve j o bs wi th o utundu e po l i ti ca l meddl i ng does not m ean there m ust be uni ver salagre em ent o n h ow to ad m in ist er it, int er p re t it s p ro vis ion s, or se t p rior iti es f oram en d m ents ori nvest i gat i on i nto w ro ngdoi ng. A lthou gh the ad m inistration a n d Pow ers m ight sh are th e u lt i m at e g o alo fe ns ur i ngf ai r, mer i t-ba se d g o ve r nm en t empl o y m en t, the i r mean s to a ch i ev e th i s g o almight differ, m akingpol i ti call oya l ty an appropr i ate r equi re m ent forthe posi ti on o fExecuti ve Se cre tary. See Am e r i ca nos , 74 F .3d at64 1; Sel ch , 5 F.3d at10 45 ; Tom cz ak, 765 F. 2d at 142. Pow er s al so ar gues that partyaffi l i ati on i s no t a n appropri ate qual i ficati on f orhi s f or m erj ob because he was hi re d thro ugh a m er i t-base d procedu re and, under s tat e law , ca n b e f ired on ly for cau se. B ut w e rej ecte d that very ar g um en t i n Fl e nne rv. Sh e ahan , 10 7 F

. 3d 459, 46 4 ( 7th Ci r . 19 97 ) , fi ndi ng th at th e I l l i no i s l eg i sl atur e’ s j udg m en t that a s up er i orm u st have a g oo d rea son f orfi ri ng an e mp l o y e e i s i r r e l e v a n tt o w h e th e r r e mo v i ngth e e mplo yee f orpol i ti calr eas ons vi ol ate s the Fi rs t Am endm ent. F l e nn er, 1 0 7F

. 3 d a t4 6 4

. P o we r s mi g hth a v e a r e med y und erI l l i noi s l aw i fh e ca n show that the a dm i ni str ati on o r the Co m m i ss i o ne r s i nfr in g ed hi s r i g ht s unde r theN o. 06

- 2866 11 Pers onnelCode, but hi s con stituti onalr i ghts have not b ee n vio lat ed ; so h e c an n otsu c c ee d on h is fe d er al c ivilrig h ts cla im

. See R iley, 42 5 F

. 3d at 365. Po wer s ne xta r g ue s th at he pr es en te d s uffi ci en t evi dence thatthe hear i ng he re cei ved befor e he w as fi r e d wa s c o ns t i t ut i o na l l y de fi c i e nt
. I l l i no i s l a w pr ovi des th at th e E x ec u tiv e Se c re ta ry ca n b e fire d on ly “ for ca u se ,” so Pow ers had a pro pertyi nter esti n re tai ni ng hi s j ob an d w as en tit led to d u e-p ro c e ss be for e t h e s ta te co u ld depri ve hi m o fi t. See R yan v. Il l. D ep’to f Childre n & Fam ily S e rvs. , 185 F.3d 75 1, 76 1 (7 th C ir. 19 99 ); s ee also Argyropou l os , 539 F.3d at74 1 (n ot in g t h at te n u re d p u b lic em plo yee s e nj oy a “near

- cate gor i calguarante e” ofpro cess bef or e they a re r em ove d fr om thei r p osi ti ons)

. W here , as h e r e , a n e mpl o y e e i s e n t i t l e d t o a fu l l h e a r i n g a fte r he ha s be enfi r ed, a pr e- depr i va ti o n h ea r i ngs at i sfi es due process i fthe em plo yee r ecei ves noti ce o fthe al l ega ti ons, an expl anati on o fthe evi dence ag ai nst hi m , and a chance t o t e ll his ve rs ion of th e s to ry . S e e Cl e v e l a n d Bd

. o f Ed uc . v. Loud er m il l , 47 0 U .S . 532 , 546 (19 85 ); M ichalowicz v. Vill. o f B edfo rd P a rk, 528 F.3d 530 , 536-37 (7th C ir. 2008). Po wer s do es no t di spu te tha t he r ec ei ve d no ti ce tha t he ha d b een a cc us ed o fi m pr o per l y s i g ni nghi s na m e as the Di r ec to r of CM S , tha t th e Comm i ss i o n e xpl aine d the ev i den ce a g ains t hi m , a nd tha t he w as g i ve n the o ppo r tu
nity to ex p lai n h is versi on o f even ts. H e argu es, how ever, tha t, b e f o r e the h e a r i ng, the Co m m i s s i o ne r s h a d a l r e a dy agr eed to fi re hi m and thus hi s hea ri ng be f or e Com m i ssioner R ichard s w as essen tiall y a sham

. A hearing w he re the deci si onm ake r has prej ud ged t he o utcom e doe s no t12 N o. 06

- 2866

com portwith due pro cess b ec au se i t e ffecti vel y deni es the em plo yee the opportunity to re spond t o the a c c u satio n s a ga in st h im

. Se eRyan , 18 5 F

. 3d at 762. B u t P o we r s h a s p u t f o r wa r d n o th i n ge x c e p tf o r h i s o wn s p e c u l a t i o n t o s u p p o r th i s c o n t e nt i o n th a tth e C o mm issi on d ec id ed to fire him before the h earing. Rath er, th e un d ispu ted eviden ce sh ow s tha t the Com m issi one rs au th o r i ze d Comm i ss i o ne r Ri ch ar ds to ho l d th e he ar i ng wi th P o we r s , a n d , i f P o we r s f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e ne w and ex c u l p a t o r y e v i d e n c e , t o r e mo v e h i m fr o m h i s p o s i ti o n. Furtherm or e, ther e i s no ev i dence thatRich ar d s had m ade up his m i nd t o fi re Powers bef or e the hear i ng. I n s t e a d , the r e c o r d s h o ws th a tR i c h a r d s l i s t e n e d t o P o wers’s exp lanation that he believed the p er s o n ne l tran sfers w er e v al id a n d t hat the Di re cto r ofCM S had app ro ved th e m. B u tb e c a us e P o we r s c o n c e d e d th a th e s i g n e d f o r ms t o a u th o r i z e p e r s o n n e l t r a n s fe r s a s th e D i r e c t o r o fC MS k n o win gth a tth e D i r e c t o r ha d r e fu s e d t o s i g n th e m, R ich ar d s c on c lu d ed th at P ow er s h ad n otp re se n te d ev id en c e o f h is in n oc en c e. T h u s R i c h ar d s e x er c ise d h is au th o r i tya nd fi r ed Po wer s. Ev eni f p rior t o the h ea rin g R ich ar d s w as inc lin ed to b elie ve P ow er s s h ou ld be fi r ed, the r e woul d b e no d ue -pr o ce ss v i o l at i o n a s l o ng as h e k ep t a n op en m in d , seeRyan , 1 85 F

. 3d at7 62 , a nd P ow er s h as p r e s e n te d n o e vid en c e t h at n ot h in g w ou ld h av e p er su ad ed R ich ar d s n ott o fir e h im , s e eHe ad v

. C hic ago Sch . Refo rm B d. o f Trs. , 2 25 F. 3d 794, 80 4 ( 7th Cir

. 20 00) ( noti ng tha t a dj ud i cato rs ar e pr esum ed to ac t in good f aith abs en t evide nc e of actu al prej ud gm en t). P o we r s a l s o c o mpl a i n s th a t, b e c a u s e o n l y th e C o mm i ssi on had the author i ty to re m ove h im , he wasN o. 06

- 2866 13

en ti tl ed to a pr e- te r m i na ti o n hea r i ngb efo r e al l o fthe Com m i ssi oner s. But Powers did receive a he aring b e fo re the per son w i th the autho ri ty to deter m i ne hi s f ate

— th e Com m i ssi oner s had del ega ted thatautho ri ty to Com m i ssi onerRi chards. Fur th er m or e, ev en i fthe Com m i ssi on ha d r et aine d the ul ti m at e au th o r i tyt o fi r e Po wer s, the Consti tuti on does not enti tl e an em plo yee to a pre - ter m i natio n h ea rin g in fron t o f th e u ltim at e d ec isio n m ak er . See Ric ci o v. County of

Fa i r f ax, Va. , 90 7 F

. 2d 1459, 1 465 ( 4th C ir. 1990); Lo s A ng eles P o lice P rotec tiv e L eag ue v . Ga tes , 90 7 F.2d 879 , 891 (9th C ir. 1990); Lo ude r m i l l v. Cl e ve l and Bd. of E duc. , 844 F.2d 304 , 312 (6th C ir. 1988). Po wer s al so a r g ue s that hi s po st
- depr i va ti o n h ea r i ng w as con stitut ionall y d efi cient and that he th e r e fo re shoul d have r ecei ved m or e e l abor ate pre - ter m i nati on p r o c e s s , b u tth i s a r g u me n t, t o o , mi s s e s th e m ar k

. As long as a m ore-search ing p ost-term ination p roced ure i s ava il able, th e p re -te rm in at i o n p ro c ee d in gs n ee d on ly estab li sh that there are reason able grou nd s to sup p ort th e rem ov al of th e e m p loy ee . SeeLouderm il l , 47 0 U.S

. at54 5- 46 ; Bair d v. Bd. of

Educ

. , 389 F.3d 685, 690-91 (7th Cir. 2004). Pow er s ca nnot di spute thatIllin ois ga ve hi m the ri ght t o a ful l he ar i ng

— wher e he was r epr es en te d b y c o uns ela nd al l owed to co nd uct di sco ver y, prese nt evi dence, and cr oss exam i ne witnes ses

— and that he to ok fulladvantag e o fi t. I fhi s pos t- ter m i nati on hea ri n g fell shor t o fdue-pr oce ss re quir em ents, hi s r em edy was to r ai se a co nstituti onal chal l enge to th ose pro ceedi ngs, notto use the a l l ege d defi ci enci es as gr ounds to att ack hi s pre - ter m i nati on h ea rin g. Ind ee d , Po w er s m u st h av e u n d er st oo d th is b ec au se h e a c tu ally rais ed c on st itu tio n al c h alle n ge s t o h is14 N o. 06

- 2866 p ost-term ination h earing. T he district cou rt, how ever, d i sm i sse d al l o fthe cl ai m s r el ati ng to the post- ter m i nati on hea ri ng. Powers d oe s n ot ar gue in hi s br i ef s o n appeal thatthi s deci si on was i ncor re ct. Thu s, he ha s ab an d on ed an y a rg u m en t t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld have consi dered hi s cl ai m s r ega rdi ng hi s pos t- ter m i nati on he ar i ng . Se eRuf

f i n- Thom pki ns v. Expe r i an Inf o. So l ut i ons, Inc . 4 2 2 F

. 3 d 6 0 3 , 6 0 7 n. 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 20 05) ; R obin v. Espo E ng’g Corp

. , 200 F.3d 108 1, 1088 ( 7th Cir. 2000). Theref or e, the j ud gm ent o f the di str i ct c ourti s A FFI RMED
.

12- 2- 08