## 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. 08

- 1035 R OBERT G UNVILLE a nd R I CHA RD O AKLEY, P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, v . R O GE R W ALKER, J R . , Dir ecto r of th e Depa r tmento fCo r r ec ti o ns o fthe S t a t e o fI l l i no i s , a nd D ONAL D J. S NYDER, form er Director of the D ep artm en t of C or re c tio n s o f th e St at e o f Ill in ois , i n thei r i nd i vi du aland offi ci alcapaci ti es; M ICHAEL M. R UMMAN, f or m erDir ecto r of th e Depa r tmento fCe nt r alM an ag ement Se rv ice s o f th e St at e o f Ill in ois , in h is i nd i v i du a l c a pa c i t y o nl y ; a nd J AM ES P. S LE DGE, Dir ecto r ofthe Dep ar tm ent o fCentra l M anage m ent S er vi ces ofthe St ate o fI l l i noi s, inh is offic ial c ap ac ity on ly, 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 . 05- 3050

—Jean ne E . Sc ott,Ju dge
.
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 9, 2009

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 9, 20092 N o. 08

- 1035 Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NERa nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Robert G un vil le and Rich ard Oakley w er e t er m i nated fro m thei r em plo ym ent with th e S ta te o fI l l i no i s afte r a c ha ng e i n the g o ve r ni ng p olit ica l p ar ty . A lth ou gh th ey w ou ld h av e b ee n el i gib le to be r eem plo yed atposi ti ons thr oughout the s tat e und erpri ori nter preta ti ons ofp er sonnelr ule s, the new adm i ni str ati on a pp l i ed the rul es m uch m or e na rro w l y, r es u l t i n gi n a l a c ko fo p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r r e e mpl o y m en t for th e t w o m en . Th ey ch ar ge d ce rt ain st at e o fficia ls wi th v i o l a t i n g th e i r r i g h t s u n d e r t he F i r sta nd Four tee nth A m endm ents. The di str i ct c ou rtgr anted su m m ar y j udg m en t i n f av o r o fa l l o fthe de fen dan ts a nd we a ffi r m.

I. G u n vi l l e a nd Oakl ey w er e e m plo yee s o fthe I l l i n ois Dep ar tm ent o fC or re cti ons ( “I DO C”) w hen the Repu bl i can partyl ostco ntro l o fthe go vernor ’ s o ffi ce t o Dem ocr at ( now ex- gov er nor ) Rod Bla goj evi ch in J anuary20 03. Gunv i l l e ha d b ee n wor k i ng f o r I DOC sinc e 19 85 , b eg i nni ng as a s ta ti o na r y fi r em an a nd wor k i nghi s way up to the posi ti on o fpl ant m ai ntenance engi neerI Iby 199 2. In 200 2, he was ass i gned to o ver see the const ructi on o ftwo new p ris on fac ilitie s: H op kin s P ar k C or re c tio n al C en te r in K an ka ke e C ou n ty , an d G ra yv ille C or re c tio n al C en te r in W hi te County. G u n vi l l e a l so re tai ned som e duti es at Thom son Corr ecti onalCenter, but he was t he o nl y s tat e em p loy ee w or kin g a t H op kin s P ar k a n d G ra yv ille in ear l y 2 003. H i s pos i ti on descr i pti on l i ste d K ankak eeN o. 08

- 1035 3 County as the hi s co unty o fem p loym ent. Oakl ey too bega n w or ki ng f or I DO C in 1985 , and a l so ro se th ro ugh th e r an k s to th e po si ti o n o fs ta te wi de co m m an dero fthe Sp ec ial O p er at ion s R es p on se T ea m (“S O R T ”). O ak ley h eld th e r an ko fc o l o ne l a t th e be g i nni ngo f2 00 3, overse eing th r ee r eg i o na l S ORT c o m m an der s. Al th o ug h h e was the sta te- w i de SORT com m ander, hi s position descr i pti on l i ste d Sanga m on County as hi s co unty o fem plo ym ent. W he n the ne w adm i ni strati o n t o o ko ffi ce i n J an uar y2 00 3, the g o ve r no r di r ec te d a l l s ta te a g encies t o fi nd w ays to i m prove e ffici enci es and save m oneyto address a st at ew ide bu dge t cr i si s. In the e ns ui ngmonths , the ne w adm i ni st r at i o n h al te d c o ns tru cti o n o n the Hopk i ns Parkand Grayv i l l e co rr ection alcent er s. Gun vi l l e, wh ose m ai n j ob re sponsibi l i ti es re l ate d to thos e new f aci l itie s, w as lai d offas of M ay 30, 2003. O a k le y w a s also l aid off o n M ay3 0 , 2 0 0 3 , f o l l o wi n ga r e o r g a n i z a t i o n o fth e S ORT com m and str ucture. S OR T w as consol i dated fro m thr ee re gio n s in to tw o. O n e o f th e re gio n a l c o m m an d er s, C ec il P olle y, w as d em ot ed from ca p ta into lieu te n a n t a n d h is pay w as c ut. A t thi s l ower r ank a nd pay, Pol l ey w as th en ap p ointed the n ew statew ide SO R T com m an d er, al though hi s duti es changed l i ttl e fro m hi s pri or re gi onalposi ti on. Gun ville and Oakl ey bel i eve d they w er e t arge te d forl ayo ff s be cause ofthei r pol i ti calaffi l i ati on. Gun vi lle w as an a cti ve m em bero fthe Repu bl i can party ; Oakl ey had vote d as a R epubli can i n so m e pr i m ari es. The Rep ubl i cans had co ntro l l ed the executi ve bra nch i n I l l i noi s f or tw enty- si x yea rs w hen th e new Dem ocr ati c g ove rno r too k o ffi ce.4 N o. 08

- 1035 I n 20 03, certain correctiona l facil iti es in I ll inois w ere em pty be cause I DO C l acke d opera ti onalfund i ng f or the m. Do na l d S ny de r wa s the A cti ngDi r e c t o r o fI DOC unti l J une 1, 20 03, wh en Rog erW al kerbec am e the Di re cto r. M ich ae l R u m m an w a s th e D ire c to r of t h e Illino is Dep ar tm ent o fCentra l M anage m ent S er vi ces (“CM S”) fro m Jan u ar y 2 00 3 t h ro u gh Ju n e 2 00 5. Jam es Sled ge is no w the Di re cto r o fCMS
. CMS i s the a g e nc y tha ta dm in ist er s t h e p er so n n el ru les for a l l st at e a ge n c ies . Julie Cu rry, the new Deputy Chie fo fS tafff orthe new gov er nor, was re sponsibl e forse ver alst ate ag enci es, i nc l udi ngI DOC. S ny derhi r ed J i m U nde r woo d a s th e Pers onnelM anage r ofI DO C. A t the ti m e o fhi s hi ring, U nd erw ood ha d no exp erience in p erson ne l m a tters an d wa s n o t i n t e r v i e we d f o r th e j o b , b u t h e h a d be en a po l i ti ca l s upp ortero fb o thCur r y a nd Bl ag oj ev i ch

. Cu rry tol d U nd er w oo d to l oo k forposi ti ons i n I DO C that c ou ld be elim in at ed , an d U n d er w oo d , tog et h e r w i t h h is re ti rin g predeces sor, N anciBound s, co m pil ed a l i st. Under woo d a sk ed Bo unds t o pr o vi de a li st o fpo si ti o ns cr eated un derthe a dm i ni st r at i o n o fGe o r g e Ry an, the outg oi ng Republ i can g ove rno r, and Bound s co m pli ed w i th thatr equest. U nd er w oo d and B ounds re vi ew ed the I DO C or gani zati onal chartand to gether i denti fi ed po si ti o ns tha t wer e no l o ng erne ede d. The t wo al so c o nsi dered f or e li m i nati on ce rt ai n posi ti ons that did not appe aro n the o r g an i za ti o na l c ha r t. W i th o utdi sc us sing th e l i stwi thS ny der, Under woo d pr es en te d the re su l ta nt l i stt o Cur r y . Under w oo d c o nv ey ed Cur r y ’ s en su i ng approvalto B ounds, w ho then prepar ed the l ayo ffpacka ge f o r th e Ma y 2 0 0 3 l a y o ff s . In a d d i t i o n t o l a y o ff s , s o meN o. 08

- 1035 5 d e p a r t me n t s u n d e r we n tr e o r g a n i z a t i o ns a tth e s a me t i m e. Sn yd er forw ar d ed th e la yo ff p ac ka ge to C M S in ear l y M ay 2003 , and CM S approve d the la yo ff, wh i ch el i m i nated the posi ti ons hel d by Gunvill e a nd Oakl ey. Twenty o th erI DOC po si ti o ns wer e el i m i na te d atthe sa m e t i m e , an d all ca p ta in s’ p os itio n s w er e e lim in at ed , a de c i s i o n tha ta ffe c t e d mor e tha n t wo h un dr e d I DOC em p loy ee s. G u n ville an d O ak ley w er e e ligib le for rec all or re em p loy m en t un d er th e p er so n n el ru les of th e Illino is A dm in istr ati ve Code, but nei therwere re em plo yed by IDO C f oll ow ing the l ayoff. Gu nvi l l e had vo ted as a Repu bl i can in p rim ar i es f ro m 19 98 to 2 0 0 3 , an d be liev ed Sn yd er sa w h im atce rt ain R e p ub li can fun ctions , i nc lud ing fun d raisers. Oa kley’s on ly p olit ica l a c t i vit y w as vo tin g, an d h e c on sis te n tly vot ed i n Republi can pri m ar i es w hi l e he w as w or ki ng f or I DOC. Gunv i l l e an d Oa k l eyc o nc ede tha t W al kera nd R u m m an d id n otkn ow th em a n d h ad n o p er so n al ro le i n deci si ons concerning them

. The di str i ct c ourtdecl i ned to co ns i der an addi ti o na l pi ec e o f ev i den ce conce r ni ng the defendants’ kno w l edge o fthe pla i nti ff s’ pol i ti cal affi li ation. K ath leen D an ne r, a n a s sistan t to the p ersonnel m an ager at I DO C, tes ti fi ed i n herdeposi ti on that she had be en to l d that v ote r re cord s w er e pul l ed f or c er ta inp e r s o n n el d ec isio n s. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtfou n d th is tes ti m ony w as i nadm i ssibl e hea rs ay, a nd decl i ned to i nc l ude i t i n the s um m ar y j udg m en t an al y si s. The evi dence thatthe defe nd ants eve n knew the pl ai n tiffs’ pol i ti cala ffi l i ati on was thi n; the evi dence thatpol i ti cal affi li ation m otivated t h e layoff d ecisions is even th inn er, as w e s hal l se e.6 N o. 08

- 1035 Gunv i l l e an d Oa k l eyc l aim tha t th ei r F i r stAm en dm en t ri ghts w er e v i ol ate d w hen theywere ter m i nated bec ause of t h eir p olit ica l affiliat ion . Th ey als o a lleg ed th at th eir Fourteenth A m endm ent r i ghts w er e v i ol ate d w hen they wer e no t pl ac ed o n reem p l o y m en t l i st s f o r a l l o fthe counti es i n w hi ch theyhad bee n em plo yed, bu t rather w er e pl aced o nly on li sts f orthei r l astco unty o fem plo ym ent. The di str i ct c ourtg ra nted j ud gm ent in f avo r of th e d efe n d an ts on all co u n ts , an d th e p lain tiffs ap p ea l.

II. On a ppea l, the p l aint i ff s ur g e us t o r ec o ns i derthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s dec i si o n t o e xc l ude a s he ar sa ythe te st im on y of K at h l e e n D an n er th at sh e h ad be en to ld that voterr eco rds were pu l l ed f orcer tai n pers onnel deci si ons. Gun vi l l e a nd Oakl ey al so conten d t hat they have produced suffi ci ent e vi dence to cr eat e an is sue o f m ate ri alf act re gar ding w h ether they were te rm i nated because o fthei r affi l i ati on wit h the Republi can par ty, o r thei r l ack ofaffi l i ati on with the Dem ocr ati c par ty. Fi nal l y, theyco m pla i n that the Due Pr oce ss Clause o f t h e F o u r t e e n th A me n d me n tw a s v i o l a t e d w h e n I DOC interp rete d t h e State’s pe rson ne l rules to p lace lai d -off em plo yee s o n re em plo ym ent l i sts o nl y forthe l astco unty of thei r em plo ym ent, ra ther than f or al l coun tie s in whi c h the y h a d e v e r b e e n e mpl o y e d, as the p r i o r a dm i ni str ati on had done.N o. 08

- 1035 7

Unt i l the Su pre m e Cour t ’ s re c en tdec i s i on i n Gr o s s v . F BL 1 Fi nanci alSer vs. , Inc. , 12 9 S. Ct. 234 3 (200 9), p lain tiffs cou ld p rev ail in a F irst A m en d m en t § 19 83 actio n if they cou ld dem ons t ra t e thatthe i r s pee c h w as a m ot i vat i ng f ac t or i n the defe nd ant’ s de ci sio n. Aft er G ross , p lain tiffs in fed era l suits m ust dem onst rat e but- f or caus ati on unless a s tatute ( such as th e C iv il R ig h ts A ct o f 19 9 1 ) p ro v id es o th er w ise
. S ee Fai rl ey, 578 F
. 3 d a t5 2 5

- 2 6
. I n th i s c a s e , th e o u t c o me w o u l d b e th e s a me with e i the r m ea s ur e ofc aus at i on bec aus e the pl ai nt i ff s c ann ot dem on s t ra t e any t i e betweenthe i r pol i t i c al affi l i at i on and the d ecision to term ina te their em p loy m en t. A. To m ake o ut a prim a faci e cl ai m f ora vi ol ati on ofFi rs t Am en dm en t r i g ht s, pub l i c empl o y ee s m us t pr es en t evi dence that( 1) thei r sp ee ch w as const i tuti onal l y pr otect ed; ( 2) theysuffer ed a depri vati on l i kel y to deterfre e sp eech ; and ( 3) their spee c h ca us ed the em p loyer’ s ac tio n . G eorg e v. Wa lk er, 535 F.3d 535 , 538 (7th C ir. 20 08 ); F ai r l ey v. An dre ws , 578 F.3d 518, 525-26 (7th Cir. 2009 )
. The pl ai n tiff s’ affi l i ati on with the Repu bl i can

1 partyi s pro tect ed und erthe Fi rs t Am endm ent, and they b ot h s u ffer ed t h e los s of th eir j ob s. Se eRut an v. Repub l i ca n P arty of Illi nois , 4 9 7U. S
. 6 2 , 6 4 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ( the F i r s tAmen dm en t fo rb id s g ov er n m en t o fficia ls t o d isc h ar ge p u b lic em plo yee s s ol el y fornotbeing support er s o fthe p oliti cal party in p ow er, unl ess party a ffi l i ati on i s a n appropri ate re quir em ent fort h e posi ti on invol ved) ( ci ti ng Bran t iv. Fin k el , 4 4 5 U .S. 50 7 (1 98 0)). Se eal s o Powers v. Ri ch ar ds , 54 9 F.3d 505 , 509 (7th C ir. 2008 ) (term ination of certain low erl eve l go ver nm ent e m plo yee s because o fthei r pol i ti cal8 N o. 08

- 1035 affilia tio n m ay vio lat e t h e F irs t A m e n d m en t); Carl s on v. Gore ck i, 374 F
. 3d 461, 46 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( w i th l i m i ted excepti ons, publi c em plo yee s m ay not be m ade to suffer advers e e m plo ym ent a cti ons because o fthei r pol i ti cal b elie fs); Nel m s v. M odise tt, 15 3 F
. 3d 815, 81 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( dism i ssa l s o f publi c em plo yee s forr eas ons ofpol i ti cal patro nage ar e v i ol ati ons ofthe Fi rs t Am endm ent un l ess par ty affi l i at i o n i s ana ppr o pr i at e r equi r ementf o r the posi ti on i nvol ved)

. The onl y f acto r at i ssue here i s whether those l ayo ff s were caused byan i m properco nsi derat i on of the i r po l i t i c a l a ffi l i a t i o n. I n o r de r t o de mon s t r a t e t hat th e d efe n d an ts w er e m ot iva te d by p olit ica l a f f i l iat ion in det er m i ni ngwhi ch em pl o y ee s to t er m i na te , the pl aintiffs m u s t firstsh ow th at th e d efe n d an ts kn ew of th eir as s o c i at ion w ith th e R ep u b lica n p ar ty
. Ne l ms , 15 3 F
. 3d at 819. W e begin w i th the deposi ti on t est i m ony ofKathle en D an ne r becau se, w ithou t this evid en ce, the p lai n t if fs have vi rtual l y no ev i dence thatany ofthe defe nd ants ( except forS nyder, wh o w as aw ar e o fGun ville ’s p ar ty affi l i ati on) knew about thei r pol i ti calaffi l i ati on, m uch l ess any evi dence thatthe defe nd an ts w er e m oti vate d by th at affi l i ati on in m aking l ayo ffdeci si ons. Danner te st i fi ed th at, dur i ngthi s sa m e ti m e per i o d, a l l o fthe I DO C captai ns and al l o fthe I DO C A ssi sta nt Deputy Dir ecto rs were al so on the chopping bl ock

. S he st ate d that v oti ng r eco rds were pu l l ed duri ng the captains’ l ayo ff

. S he kne w thatvo ti ng r eco rds were obt ai ned fo r al l o fthe ID O C captai ns but w as not aw ar e that they had been pul l ed f orany othe r em plo yee s. S he di d notN o. 08

- 1035 9

We h a v e o mi t t e d a n o b j e c t i o n fr o m o p p o s i n g c o u n s e l i m- 2 m ediately b efore thi s answer, regarding the hears ay nature ofthe potenti al answer. know w ho pul l ed the re cor ds. H ertest im ony on how sh e l e a r ne d thi s i nfo r mat i o n wa s b r i e f a nd i s wor th r epeati ng: Q: Ho w d i d y o u b e c o me a wa r e tha tv o t i ngr e c o r ds ha d b e e n pu l l e d? A : I t cam e u p in a con versat ion w ith th e cap tains’ layoff

. Q: W ho was

— w ho t ol d you that? A: M r . Und e r wo o d. Q : D i d h e p u l l th e m? A : N o, Idon’ t be l i eve he had the ab i l i ty to do that

. Q: W h at d id M r. U nd er w oo d say to you i n re gar ds to the v oting r eco rds? A : H e t ol d m e ho w m any captai ns were re gi ste re d 2 Repu bl i cans v er sus Dem ocr ats
. Q: Did yo u askhi m how he knew that? A : Iknew he obta ined th at inform ation from the G overnor ’ s o ffi ce. Q: Did he say an y th i nge l se t o y o u abo utthe v o ting re cor ds? A : N o. R. 53 , Ex. 5, at40

- 42.10 N o. 08

- 1035 T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tf o u n d th a tD a n n e r ’ s t e s ti m o ny a b o ut U nd erw ood ’s statem en ts w as inad m issible hearsa y . T h e c o u r ta l s o f o u n d th a tD a n n e r ’ s s t a t e me nt w as irrel evan t beca us e it related to a d ifferent layoff

— th e l ay o ff o fI DOC ca pta i ns

— and because the pla i nti ff s di d not ti e Un derwood’s cl ai m to any ofthe defe nd an ts here

. Gunv i l l e an d Oa k l eyno w ar g ue tha t Dann er ’ s te st i m o ny w as not hear say . They c ha ra c te riz e Un derwood as a co con sp irator ofSn y d er, and cont en d that Da nn er’s report ofU nd er w oo d’s sta tem ent f al l s unde r th e co - conspi ra tor ex c e pt i o n o fF e d. R
. Ev i d. 8 0 1 ( d) ( 2 ) ( E)
. T he y a l s o c i te G a ll i v. New Je rs ey M eadow lands Com m ’n , 49 0 F
. 3d 265 ( 3d Cir
. 20 07) , i n su p p or t ofthei r cl ai m thatthi s e vi dence i s bo th adm i ssibl e a nd r el evant
. A dm i ssibi l i ty i s the thr esho l d q u est i on be cause a c ou rtm ay co n sid er on ly a d m iss ible ev id en c e in a s s e ss in g a m ot ion for s u m m ar y jud gm en t. Haywood v
. LucentTechnologies, Inc. , 32 3 F
. 3d 524, 53 3 ( 7th C ir. 20 03) ( i nadm i ssibl e e vid ence w i l l noto ver com e a m oti on f or su m m ar y jud gm en t). See a lso B o m ba rd v. Fo rt Wa yn e New spap ers, Inc. , 92 F. 3d 560, 56 2 ( 7th Ci r. 1996) ( evi dence re l i ed upon at the sum m ar y j ud gm ent s tag e m ust be com petent evidence ofa type othe rwis e a dm i ssibl e a t tr i al )
. A party m ay not re l y up on inadm i ssibl e hea rs ay t o o p p o se a m ot ion for s u m m ar y jud gm en t. See Loga n v . C aterpill ar, Inc. , 2 4 6 F
. 3 d 9 1 2 , 9 2 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 01) ( i na dm i ss ibl e he ar sa y i s no t en o ug h t o pr ec l ude s um m ary ju d g m en t); Eis e ns t adtv. Ce nt e l Corp. , 11 3 F
. 3d 738, 74 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) (hear sayi s inadm i ssibl e in sum m ar y j ud gmen tp r o c e e di ng s t o the s a me e xt e nt that i ti s i na dm iss ible in a tria l); B o m ba rd, 92 F .3d at56 2 (in a d m i s sib leN o. 08

- 1035 11 hear sayfro m an a ffi davi t o r deposi ti on wil l notsuffi ce to overcom e a m otion for su m m ary j ud gm en t). W h e n a district cou rt’s dec isi on to gran t sum m ary j u d g me n ti s p r e m i se d o n a n e v i d e n t i a r y fi n d i n g, we u se a c om b in ed st an d ar d of re vie w . Sc hin dler v. S eiler, 474 F
. 3d 10 08 , 1 01 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. W e r ev i ew the d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec i s ion th at a p ar tic u lar st at em en t is not adm i ssibl e a s hea rs ay und eran abuse o fdi scr eti on st an d ar d

. Id

. Butwe r ev i ew the d ist r i ctc o ur t’ s g r an t of sum m ar y j ud gm ent deno vo , co nsi deri ng al l o f th e ev i den ce i n the li gh t m o stf av o r ab l e to the no nm ov in g p ar ty
. Ge orge, 5 35 F.3d at53 8; Sc hin dler, 474 F.3 d at10 10 . D an n er ’s d ep os itio n te st im o n y w as cla ss ic he a r s a y . “ ‘ He a r s a y ’ i s a s t a t e ment, o the r tha n o ne ma de by the decl ar ant whil e t est i fyi ng atthe tr i alo r hear i ng, offer ed i n evidence to prove the tr uth ofthe m att eras se rt ed .” F e d . R . E vid . 801 (c ); U nite d State s v. Harris , 28 1 F. 3d 6 6 7, 6 7 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )
. Da nn e r c l a i med t o kno w that vot i ng r eco rds were acces sed and used beca use U nd er w oo d to l d her so. U nd er w oo d’s sta tem ent, as re peated byDanner, was not m ad e a t a tr i alo r hear i ng, an d the pl aint i ff s se ekt o us e i t to pr ove th atv o ting re cor ds w er e a cces sed and used to m ake l ayo ffdeci si ons. T h u s, D an n er ’s v er sio n of U n d er w oo d ’s s ta te m e n ts is n o ta d mi s s ib l e a n d w i l l n o to v e r c o me a mo t i o n f o r s u mm ar y jud gm en t. Se e Coll i ns v. Se e m an , 462 F.3d 75 7, 76 0 n .1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( affi rm i ng di str i ct c ou rt ’ s r efusalto con s i de r i n i t s s ummar y j ud g men tde c i s i o n a n i nv e s t i g ator’s sum m ary of un sw orn sta tem en ts); Eis enstadt, 11 3 F. 3d at 742. The di str i ct c ourtdi d not abus e i ts disc re ti on i n fi nd i ng tha t the st ate m ent was i nadm i ssibl e hea rs ay.12 N o. 08

- 1035 N or are w e p er su ad ed th at D an n er ’s s ta te m en t w ou ld be a dm i ss ibl e unde r the c o - co ns pi r at o re xc ept i o n t o the hear sayr ule

. U nd erFe d R. Evid. 80 1( d)( 2) ( E), a sta tem ent i s no t hea rs ay i fthe sta tem ent i s o ffer ed aga i nst a par t y a nd i s a s t a t e men t b y a c o - c o ns pi r a t o r o f a part y du ring the co u rs e an d i n further ance o fthe conspi ra cy. Se eal s o Unit e d Sta tes v . Al vi ar, 573 F.3d 526 , 540 (7th C ir. 2009 ) ( pa rt y seek i ng adm i ssi on o fst ate m ent under Rule 801( d)( 2) ( E) m ust dem onst ra te that a co nspir acy e x i s t e d , th a tth e d e fe n d a n ta n d th e de c l a r a n tw e r e me mber s o fthe conspi ra cy, and that the s ta te m ent s ought to be a dm i tt ed w as made dur i nga nd i n fur th er an ce o fthe conspi ra cy)
. Gun vi l l e a nd Oakl ey ar gu e th at ther e was an “i m p li ci t pl an to el i m i nate l ongs tandi ng em plo yee s ofthe f or m err epubli can adm i ni str ati on . . . i n or der t o m ake r oo m f or d em ocr ats and supp or ter s o fthe new G ov er nor . ” Bri efo fA pp el l ants, at28
. A ccor ding to Gu n v i l l e a n d O a k l e y, c i r cums t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s h o ws th e “ ap p ea ra n c e o f so m e u n d oc u m en te d co n sp ira c y.” Id

. The ypo si t th atUnder woo d a nd S ny der, o ne o fthe defe nd an ts here , were co- conspi ra tor s. In supp or t o f th is und ocu m en ted , i m p li cit cons p irac y betw een U nd erwoo d a nd S ny d er, Gunv i l l e an d Oa k l eyo fferl i te r al l y no evi dence. They s p ecu l ate thatU nd er w oo d m ust hav e b e e n hi r e d b e c a us e o fh i s p o l i t i c a l a ffi l i a t i o n because he was n ot o th er w i se quali fi ed f orhi s j ob. S nyder i ni ti al l y r efused to answer deposi tio n q uesti ons base d on h is Fi fth A m en d m en t privil eges, and the p lai nt iffs a s s e r ttha t( un s pe c i fi e d) n e g a t i v e i nfe r e nc e s ma y be draw n fro m thatr efusal

. T h e p laintiff s f ai l to not e thatN o. 08

- 1035 13

Af t erthe defen dant s fi l ed the i r m ot i on f or s um m ar y j udg- 3 m en t, Sn y d er’s atto rn ey no t i fied th e p lain tiffs’ cou nsel th at, bec aus e Sn yder was the s ubj ec tofa fede ra l i nve s t i gati on, he woul d i nvoke hi s Fi fth Am en dm en tpr i v ilege s atan y depos i t i on. Su bs equen t l y, Sn yder ’ s c ouns el inf or m ed the pl ai nt i ff s ’ l awyer s thatSn yder woul d t es t ify ata depos i t i on reg ard ing m atter s con tain ed in an affid av it he su b m itted in s uppor tofthe defen dant s ’ m ot i on f or s um m ar y j udgm en t
. The re c or d con tain s no no t i c e ofdepo s i t i on f or Sn yder no r any m ot i on t o c om pel hi s t es t i m ony. they neverse nt S nyder a no tice f ora deposi ti on. They 3 ass er t that bo th S nyder and U nd er w oo d w i sh ed to ke ep th eir j ob s a n d th er efo re h ad an inc en tiv e t o c om p ly wi ththe g o ve r no r ’ s wi sh es . Butthe y f ai l t o c i te a ny ad m iss ibl e ev i den ce t o s uppo r t th e ex i st en ce o fa c o nsp iracy. N or do th ey p rop ose an y t h e o ry of how U nd erw oo d’s sta tem ent t o Dann erwas i n further ance o fthat unnam ed, unsupp or ted co nspir acy. In or der t o draw an i nfe re nce in f avo r ofa nonm oving par ty, ther e m ust be so m e ev i den ce from whi cht o dr aw the i nfer en ce . But th er e i s no th i ngmor e he r e th ans pec ul at ion a nd i nnue n d o. Se eLi u v . T & HM ac hi ne, Inc . , 19 1 F
. 3d 790, 79 6 ( 7th Cir
. 19 99) ( a par ty m ust pre sent m or e than m er e s pecula

tion or conj ectu re to d efeat a su m m ary j ud gm en t m otion). W e cannot const ruct thi s unsup port ed conspi ra cy out of a vo i d, a nd the n a ss um e tha t a pa r ti cul ars ta te m en t w as m ade i n further ance ofthatco nspir acy. Gal liadvances the pla i nti ff s no furtheri n see ki ng to adm i t U n d er w oo d’s sta tem ent. The o nl y s i m i l ar i ty betwe en G alli an d th is cas e is an alle ga tio n th at p u b lic14 N o. 08

- 1035

O n p ag e 8 o f the A p p ellan ts’ B rie f, t h e p lain tiffs attrib u te 4 thi s tes ti m ony to O ak ley, ci ti ng R
. 47, Attachm ent 11, at pag es 1 4 0

- 4 3
. No t hi ng o n th o s e p a g e s o fOa k l e y ’ s d e p o s i t i o n, h o wev er, refe r e n c e s a ny on e in p erso nn el w or k ing fro m a v ote r list f or any purpo se . G unv il le , how ever, did tes ti fy at pages 140- 43 in hi s dep osi ti on, th a t G eo rge DeT el la tol d him thata “gentl em an w or k ing i n p erso nn el” w as w or k ing fro m a v ote r list prod uced b y the governor’ s of fic e. R
. 47, A tt achm ent 10, at 140- (co n tin u ed ...) e m p loy ee s w er e t er m in at ed d u e t o p ar ty affiliat ion
. Gal li, 490 F. 3d at 269. In supp or t o fthatcl ai m , Gal l i pro du ced evi dence thatth e vice chai r ofthe defe nd ant co m m i ssi on ad m itt ed to h er th at th e c om m iss ion w as “ let tin g R ep u b licans g o” because “s om e Dem ocr at w ants the s pot. ” Id

. This sta tem ent was the adm i ssi on o fa partyo pp onent, admi ssible unde r Rul e 80 1( d) ( 2)
. The r e was no c o - co nspi r at o r s ta te m en t ati ss ue i n G alli

. Gu n ville and Oakl ey ha v e n o v i ab l e l e g a l the o r y tha two ul d supp o r tthe a dm i ssi on o fDanner’ s s tat em ent. Oak l eyc o nc ede s th athe i s unabl e to pr o ve tha t an y o fthe de fen dan ts kne w ofhi s po l i ti ca l a ffi l i at i o n. Gu nvi l l e’ s o nl y o therev i dence that the defe nd ants kn ew his p oli tical affi li ation an d used i t to m ake layoff de c i s i o ns i s h i s c l a i m t ha tS ny de r s a w h i m a tR e pu bl i can functi ons. A t m ostthi s s how s th at S nyder knew Gu nvi l l e wa s a Rep ubl i can. A s forev i dence that po l i ti ca l a ff il ia ti o n was the c au se o fthe i r t er m i na ti o n, O ak ley c laim s h e h ad be en to ld th at a “g en tle m an in per so nne l ” was wor k i ngo ffo fa v o te r l i stt o de te r m i ne whi chpo siti o ns t o e l i m i na te
. The pl aint i ff s m ak e no 4N o. 08

- 1035 15

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 4 3
. T h i s t e s t i mo n y s u ffe r s th e s a me h e a r s a y p r o b l e ms w h et h er it w a s u tt er ed b y O a k le y o r b y G u n v ill e. a t t e mp tt o c i r c u mv e n tth e o b v i o u s h e a r s a y p r o b l e ms wi ththi s cl ai m . Gunv i l l e an d Oa k l eya l so a r g ue tha t the perso ns deter m i ni ng w h i ch posi ti ons to el i m i nate had no ex p erience i n p erson ne l m atters an d d id n ot un d ers t a nd the stru ctu re of I D O C
. From this, th e plaintiff s as k u s t o i n fer th at th e s ta te d rea so n for t h e la yo ffs, a m ate ri alr eor ganiza ti on t o enhance e ffi ci ency, was a p re te x t. T h at th e d ec isio n -m ak er s m ay h av e b ee n u n q u alified to co n d u c t t h e t as k of re st ru c tu rin g, h ow ev e r , t ells us noth ing ab o u t w he th er the m otive forthe layoffs was i m pr o per . The r e i s a si zabl e l ea p f r om cond uct i ng a r est ructur in g i neptl y t o conducti ng i t fori m proper pu rpos es . W e d ecl i ne to ta ke that l eap i n the com ple te abs en ce o fa ny e vi den ce po i nt i ngi n tha t di r ec ti o n. The pl a i nt i ff s ha v e f a i l e d t o c r e a t e a g e nu i ne i s s ue o ff act re gar ding w h et her the defendants used pol i ti calaffi l i atio n in d et er m in in g w h o w ou ld b e l aid off. Se eBor cky v . M ayt ag Corp. , 248 F. 3d 691, 695 ( 7th Cir
. 2001 ) (fac tu al dispu te s a re “g enui ne” o nl y i fthe evi dence i s s uch th ata r ea so nabl e j ur y c o ul d r etur n a v erdi ctf o r the no nm o va nt )
. S um m ar y j udg m en t i n f av o r o fthe de fen d an t s on the First A m en d m en t claim s w as th erefore appropri ate
.
B. Gu nvi l l e a nd Oakl ey also co ntend that the defendants vi ol ate d thei r du e pr oce ss ri ghts w hen theyf ai l ed to16 N o. 08

- 1035 pla ce them o n appropri ate r eem plo ym ent l i sts , ther eby p re ve n tin g t h em from be in g re h ire d to oth er civ il se rv ice p os itio n s w it h i n ID O C . A c c or d in g t o G u n ville an d Oa k l ey, b efo r e th e Democ r at s gaine d c o nt r o l o fthe g o ve r no r sh i p, CM S ha d i nt er pre te d t he r el ev an t pe r s o nne l r ul e s i n the I l l i no i s Admi ni s t r a t i v e Co de b ro ad ly to allow laid -offem p loy ee s t o q u alify for p os iti ons i n any f or m erco unty o fem plo ym ent an d a lso to pickfro m a l i st ofposi ti ons, withi n theirj ob quali fi cati o ns , tha t wer e av ai l ab l e th r o ug ho utthe st ate
. The I l l i no i s Ad m i ni st r at i ve Co de ( “I AC ”) go ve r ns the proce ss f orthe re cal l o fl ai d-o ffem plo yee s: The De par tmen t s ha l l e st ab l i sha nd mai nt ain a re em plo ym ent l i st, by cl ass and agencyand county, o r othe r desi gnate d geo gr aphica l ar ea approve d by the Di re cto r bef or e l ayo ff

. A cert i fi ed em plo yee , except those w h o ar e in the Se ni orPubl i c S er vi ce A dm i ni str ato r orthe Publi c S er vi ce Ad m i ni strat or cl ass es w ho a re co ve re d by s ubsect i ons ( b) and ( c) bel ow, w ho has bee n i nd ete rm i natel y l ai d off sh al l be pla ced i n or der o fl ength of continuous se rv i ce a s defined i n Se cti on 3 02.1 90 on a re em plo ym ent l i st f orr ecal l to the fi rs t a vai l abl e a ssi gnm ent t o a po si ti o n in the c l as s ( or re l at ed cl as se s wi ths ubs ta nti al l y s i m i l arr equi re m en ts and duti es) and age ncy, and county, o r othe r desi gnate d geo gr aphica l l oca ti on orar ea i n w hi ch the em plo ye e w as ass i gned pri orto being p laced o n th e reem p loym en t li st. W he re circu m stan ces w arran t, a t t h e d iscretion of th e D irector, such r eem plo ym ent l i st m ay be e stabl i shed by re l ate d cla sse s whose duti es ar e s ubstanti al l y s i m i l ar to the class fr om w hich the em p loyee w as lai d off

.N o. 08

- 1035 17 80 Il l. A d m in. C od e § 302 .5 7 0 . Th e “D ep artm en t” referenc e d in the fi r s ts e nt e nc e i s CMS
. G un v i l l e a nd Oa kl ey as s e r ttha tthe p r o v i s i o n qu o t e d ab o v e , r e a d wi th an oth er section of the IA C , allow s em p loyees to qu ali fy f orappropr i ate j obs anywhere i n the sta te: W he ne ve r the r e i s an y pe r so n a va i labl e o n a re em plo ym en t l i st f orr ecal l to a vacantposi ti on f or th e sam e cl ass , o r re l ate d cl ass es w here such have been est abl i shed pursuant to Se cti on 3 02. 570, ag ency and c ounty or othe r desi gnate d g eog ra phical ar ea, no t em pora ry, pro vi si onalo r proba ti on ary a pp oi ntm ents shal l be m ade to such va cancy. 80 I l l

. A dm i n. Code § 302. 58 0. The effect ofthes e p er so n n el ru les to ge th er , G u n ville an d O ak ley a r g u e, is that an em plo yee i s enti tl ed to be pla ced on reem plo ym en t l i st s no t o nl y f o r hi s la stc o unty o fe m pl o y m en t but on re em plo ym ent l i sts f or any county i n the sta te . They ar gue that pr iorRepubli can adm i ni str ati ons i nter prete d th e r u l e s b r o a d l y t o a l l o w th e i r r e a d i n go fr e e mpl o y m en t p roced ure s. T he De m ocratic all y-cont roll ed govern or’s offi c e, how eve r, i nter prete d these provi si ons to pla ce a l ai d-o ffem plo yee o nly on the r eem plo ym ent l i st f or th e sing l e co unty des i g na te d as th e wor k co unty on the em p loyee’s l ast j ob d escrip tion. For G un vil le, t h a t i nt erpreta ti on was deci si ve: ther e were no pri sons in h is l ast coun ty o fem plo ym ent b ecause co nstr ucti on had bee n hal ted. Oakl ey al so w as unsuccess ful i n hi s questf or re em plo ym ent. Gu nvi l l e a nd Oakl ey concede that the I A C al so gr ants th e Di r ec to r o fCM S the di sc r et i o n t o i nte r pr eta nd apply the r ule s:18 N o. 08

- 1035 T h e D ire c to r of C en tr al M an ag em en t Se rv ice s s h all deter m i ne the pro per i nter preta ti on a nd appli cati on ofea ch r ule o fthe D ep artm ent o fCentra l M anage m en t S e r v i c e s . T h e d e c i s i o n o f th e Di r e c t o r a s to t he p ro p er int er p re ta tio n or a p p lica tio n of an y s u c h ru le sh al l b e fi na l a nd b i ndi ngupo n a l l a g en ci es a nd em pl o y e e s a ffe c t e d the r e b yu nl e s s o r u nt i l mo di fi ed or rev er se d b y the Ci vi l S er vi ce Co m m i ss i o n o r the c ou rt s. A ll age n c ies an d em p loy e e s s h all c om p ly w ith th e D irector’s dec isi on i n t h e absen ce of a w ri tte n opi ni on o fthe A tt or n ey Genera l o r a wri tte n di r ec ti ve o fthe Ci vi l S er vi ce C om m i ss i o n de cl ar i ng th e D ire c to r’s d ec isio n to be u n law fu l. 80 I l l

. Adm i n. Co de § 304. 11 0. The y e m pha si ze tha t th e cou rts m ay m od ify or r everse a CM S Director’s interpreta ti on o fthe rul es, but they negl ect to ci te the fi nal sente nce o fthe provi si on, o bl i gat i ng al l ag enci es to f o l l o w the Di r ec to r ’ s r ea di ngo fthe r ule s unl es s th e A tto rneyGeneral or Civi l S er vi ce Com m i ssi on has iss ue d a w ritten d irective dec lari ng the D irector’s int erp re t a t ion to be un law ful. Th us , I D O C offici als w ere l eg al l y o bl i g ed to f o l l o w the CM S i nt erp r et at i o n o fthe rules. Th at a c ou rt m ay m od ify or r everse the D irector’s re adingo fthe I A C i s i rr el evant, i n a n y e vent, i n thi s ca se because the pla i nti ff s nev eras ked a cour t to m odi fy o r r e v e r s e th e D i r e c t o r ’ s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In s t e a d th e y c o mpl aine d tha t th e Democ r at i c admi ni strati o n r i g g ed th e sys tem so thattheywould not be e l i gibl e fo r re em plo ym ent o pp or tuni ti es. There ar e a num bero fpro bl em s with the p lain tiff s’ ar gum ents. Fi rs t, due proc ess i s no t i m plic at ed wh enN o. 08

- 1035 19 gov er nm ent e m plo yee s a re la id offdue to a re or gani zatio n . M i s ek v. City of Chi cago , 783 F.2d 98, 100 (7th C ir. 19 86 )
. In M isek, we no te d tha t so m e g o ve r nm en t empl o y e e s h a v e a p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s ti n th e i r j o b s a nd m ayb e di smi ss ed o nl y i n acc o r dan ce wi thfede r aldue p ro c es s s t a n d ar d s. 78 3 F .2d at10 0. D u e p ro c es s g en er ally r equi r es no ti ce a nd a mean i ng fulo ppor tu ni tyt o r es po nd p rior to te rm in at ion
. Id

. Butthe re i s ane xc ept i o n t o the ri ght t o a hea ring wh en t h e disc harg e i s ca used by a re or ga n i za tio n . Id

. Gunv i l l e an d Oa k l eyc l ai m tha t an y re or gani zati on her e was a sham , however, and that they ar e the r e f o r e s t i l l e nt i t l e d t o c ha l l e ng e the i r t e r mi na t i ons. Butthe de fen dan ts ha ve pr o duce d e vide nc e th atthe ter m i nati ons w er e the r esult ofa re or gani zati on o f I DOC , a nd Gu nv i l l e a nd Oa k l e y ha v e pr o du c e d no a dm i ssibl e e vi dence to dispute the l egi ti m acy ofthatr eor ganization
. Th erefore, un d er M i sek, G unvil l e a nd Oakl ey h ad n o rig h t t o a d u e p ro c es s he ar in g pr ior to t h eir te rm inati ons. Tha ts a i d, i tdo e s n o ta pp e a r tha tGu nv i l l e a nd Oa k l ey soughta hearin g, an d they do not see k a hear i ng o n ap p ea l. R at h er , th e c ru x of th eir d u e p r o c es s c laim is th at th e D em ocratical ly -cont roll ed ad m inistration interprete d the per sonnelr ule s in a m an n er thatexcl ud ed them fro m m osto pp or tu n i ti es f orr eem plo ym ent. They c o n t e n d th a tth e r ul e s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n g i v e n th e s a me i nter preta ti on use d und erpri or, Repu bl i can- contr ol l ed adm i ni s t r a t i o ns . T ha tb r i ng s u s t o the s e c o nd maj or probl em with the pl ai nti ffs’ cl ai m . “[ T]he du e pr oce ss c l auses do notr equi re hear i ngs t o re sol ve disputes20 N o. 08

- 1035 ab o utthe mean i nga nd e ffect of l aws , r egul at i o ns , a nd contr acts
. ” Goro s v. County of Cook, 48 9 F
. 3d 857, 85 9- 60 ( 7th Cir
. 20 07)
. A pl ain tiff m ay not use a S ecti on 1 983 acti on “to deter m i ne wh etherso m e s tatute or c on tr act cre ate s a p rop erty interest in th e abs tract; un less th e p la in tiff m ai ntai ns thatthe sta te acto r had to offera hear i ng to re sol ve som e co ntest ed i ssue off act, the dispute bel ongs i n s t a t e c o ur tu nd e r s t a t e l aw . ” Goro s , 4 8 9 F
. 3 d a t8 6 0
. As i n Goro s , the pl aint i ff s he r e ha ve no t r ai se d a s ubs ta ntiv e d u e p ro c es s c laim be c au se n o fu n d am en ta l righ t is at st ak e in the i nter preta ti on o fthe perso nnel r ule s. They ar e si m plychal l engi ng the i nter preta ti on o fst ate r ule s by stat e offici als. U nd e r Goro s , a c l ai m r el at i ngt o the in te rp re ta tio n of th e p er so n n el ru les d o e s n otbe lon g in federa l co urt. To th e e xt en t th atGunv i l l e an d Oa k l eya r g ue tha t th e person n el rul es w er e r i gge d to excl ud e them fro m re em plo ym ent o pp or tuni ti es because o fthei r pol i ti cal af f i l i a t i o n, th a t c l a i m s u ffe r s th e s a me d e fi c i e n c y a s t he ar g um en t o n t er m i na ti o n due t o po l i ti ca l a ffi l i at i o n. The pla i nti ff s hav e l i ter al l y no ev i dence thatpol i ti cal a ff ili a tion p layed a rol e in the d ecision to place l aid-off em plo yee s o n re em plo ym ent l i sts o nl y for t h e la st county ofem plo ym ent. T h er e i s no ev i dence that G unvi l l e an d Oa k l eyo r o nl y Re publ i ca n e m pl o y ee s w ere si ngl ed out f orthi s pol i cy; i t a pp l i ed acr os s the bo ar d to al l em plo yee s w ho had b een l ai d o ff

. W i th n o e vid ence ofan i m properm oti ve i n i nter preting the p er sonnelr ule s, the pl ai nti ff s c an n ot susta i n thei r cl ai m s. W e hav e r evi ew e d th e p l a i n t i ff s ’ r e ma i n i n gc l a i ms a n d fi n d noN o. 08

- 1035 21

m er i t i n the m . The di st r i ctc o ur t was c o r r ecti n g r an ting j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe defe nd ants. A FFI RMED .

10- 9- 09