The Honorab le Char l es N. Cl eve rt, J r. , Chi efJ udge ofthe  U nited States D istrict Co u rt fo r t h e E astern D istrict of W isco n sin , sitt in g b y d es ig n a tio n .



## 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. 10

- 3396 C H I CA GO T EAC HERS U NI ON, L OC AL N O . 1, A MERI CAN F EDERAT ION OF T EAC HERS, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v.
B OARD O F E DUC ATI ON O F T HE C ITY OF C HI CAGO, et al., D ef endants-A ppell ants
. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:10- cv-04852

—David H . C oar, Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 7, 2011

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 29, 2011

B efore M A N I O N and W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges , a nd C LEV ERT, D istrict Judge.  W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . F aci ng si gn ifi cant b ud get defi ci ts, the Ch i cago Board ofEdu cati on was f or ced to2 N o. 10

- 3396 l ayo ffne ar l y 1 , 30 0 te ac he r s i n s ev er als ta g es dur i ng J une, J uly, and A ugust o f20 10. A l though s om e o ftho se tea cher s have been r e- hi re d, m any hav e no t, ev en as new vacanci es have ar i sen withi n the C h icago Publ i c S chool sy st em. The te ache r s co nt en d tha t th eyha ve a due proce ss ri ght under the F ou rt eenth A m endm ent t o an opportunity t o show that they a re qual i fi ed to fi l lnew vacanci es as they ar i se f ora re aso nabl e pe riod o fti m e. W e a gr ee. The di str i ct c ourtent er ed an i nj uncti on r eq u i r i n gth e B o a r d t o co l l ab o r a t e w i th th e U n i o n t o p r o mul g at e r egul at i o ns t o e st ab l i shr ec al l pr o ce dur es pur su an t t o Se c t i o n 34 -18 (31 ) of th e Illino is Sc h oo l C od e. W h ile w e a gr ee that the Boa rd sho uld prom u l gat e the r egul ati ons , there i s no thi ng i n Se cti on 3 4- 18( 31) thatr equir es coo perat i on with the U ni on. W e there f or e d ire ct th e cou r t to modi fy the i nj unc ti o n t o make i t co nform to thi s o pi ni o n.

I . B AC KGR OUND A pp el l ant Boar d ofEdu cation o fthe Cityo fChica go (th e “ B oa rd ”) is org an i ze d u n d er A rt icle 34 of th e Illino is S ch o o lCo de an d i s ch arged wi ththe g o ve r na nc e o fthe Ch i cago Publi c Scho ol sys tem
. The Board em plo ys over 40, 000 perso ns, o verhal fo fwh om ar e t eacher s. A pp el l ee Ch i cago Teacher s’ U ni on ( the “ U n i on”) i s the te acher s’ excl usi ve bar gaini ng r epres entat i ve. Facing si gni fi cant budget defi ci ts on the eve o fthe 2010

- 2011 sch ool year, th e B oard w as forced to la y off near l y 1 , 300 tea cher s. The Boar d i m ple m ented i ts l ayo ff s th r o u g h a s e r i e s o fr e s o l u t i o n s i s s u e d o v e r the s u m-N o. 10

- 3396 3

m er . On J une 15, 20 10, t h e B oard passed a re soluti on author i zi ng the “ho nor abl e t er m i nati on” ofte nured tea cher s. The Board pass ed a s eco nd r esoluti on o n J une 23, 20 10, au th orizi ng sch ools to fi rst lay off teac he rs w ho w ere und er re m edi ati on and whose l ast perf or m an c e rat i ngs were neg at i ve . Al th o ug h the Bo ar d s ug g es te d t o the m edi a that the l ayo ffl ar gel y invol ved teacher s with un satisfactory eva luations , m ost of the te a c h e r s lai d off had “excel l ent, ” “ superi or, ” o r “sat i sf acto ry ” r atings. A l l l ai d-o ff tea cher s re cei ved noti ce of their t er m i nati o n . Al o n gwi th th e i r n o t i c e s , th e B o a r d g a v e t he tea cher s info rm ati on o n how to se ar ch and a p p ly f or va c an t t ea c h in g p os itio n s w ith inth e C h ica go P u b lic Scho olsy ste m . The not i ces al so poi nted the tea cher s t o a w ebsi te l i sting va canci es and i ncl ud ed i nvi ta tio ns to a t t e n d a r é s u mé a n d i n t e r v i e wi n g wo r k s h o p an d t wo j ob f a i r s tha twe r e o pe n s o l e l y t o di s pl a c e d t e a c hers

. H o wev er, no t a l lvac an ci es w er e l i st ed o n the web si te , a nd l ai d-o ffte acher s were not gi ven p re fer ence f oro ther tea chi ng j obs

. Throughout the s um m er, the Board l ai d off1, 289 tea c hers i n sev er alphases that ended on A ugust 3 1, 2 0 1 0
. H o we v e r , th e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s th a ta tl e a s ts o me p e r s o n s w e r e h i r e d t o fi l lt e a c h i n gp o s i t i o ns t h a tb e c a me avail abl e du ring the sum m er . The tea cher s hi re d to fill thos e pos i ti ons w er e no t t enured t eacher s. Du e t o an i ncre ase i n federa lfund i ng i n A ugust 2010, th e B oard recall ed ap p roxim ately 715 ten ure d teach ers w ho h ad been l aid off or gi ven notices. T he teac he rs w ere no t recal l ed pur su an t to a n o ffi ci alr ec al lpo l i cy . As the4 N o. 10

- 3396

The Uni on s ubs equen t l y withdre w Coun t s I I I , I V , an d V of 1 the Com pl ai nt
. CountI I , whi c h c hal l en ge d the Boar d’ s dec i s i on to d i scha rg e 25 to 50 teach ers w ho w ere ch osen alleg ed ly f or di s c har ge be c aus e ofa s i ngl e “un s at i s f ac t or y ” eva l uat i on, is not a t iss u e in th is ap p eal. Board’ s Labo r Rel ati ons Offi c er , RachelResni ck, st ate d i n herdeposi ti on, “A teacherwh o i s l ai d offm ay be re h ire d , bu t w e h av e n o re c all p olic y.” Si nce the l ayo ff e n d ed , m or e v acanci es have opened up withi n the Ch i cago Publ i c S choolsy ste m . N atur al l aborneeds com pel the Board t o hi re hund re ds ofnew tea cher s e ver y y ear . The l aid -off t eacher s who w er e no t re hi re d com pla i n that m any o ftho se posi ti ons have been fil led w ith ne w hires i ns tead ofw it h l aid-off tenure d teache rs . O n A u g u s t1 0 , 2 0 1 0 , th e U n i o n fi l e d a fi v e - c o u n tc o mp l a i n t
. T h r e e d a y s l a t e r, i tfi l e d a mo t i o n f o r a p r e l i m-

1 i naryi nj uncti on. On Septe m b er 15 , 20 10, the dist ri ct co ur t hel d a he ar i ngt o s i m ul ta ne o us l y a ddr es s th e U ni on’ s m oti on f ora prel i m i naryi nj uncti on a nd i ts r e qu e s tf o r a p e r man e nti nj un c t i o n. T he c o ur tf o un d that the t eacher s had a p ro pertyi nter estpro ceedi ng fro m 10 5 I LC S 5/34- 18( 31) thatwas prot ecte d b y th e F ourt eenth A m endm ent t o the Unite d Sta tes Consti tuti on a nd that enti tl ed them to so m e k i nd o fr ete nti on pro cedure. The cour t th en found that, i n additi on t o succee ding on the m er i ts, the U ni on m et the r em ai ni ng thr ee re quir em en ts for ob ta in in g a p er m an en t inj u n c tio n . F i r st, i t concl ud ed ther e w as no adequate r em edy atl aw bec auseN o. 10

- 3396 5 the t eacher s s ought an o pp or tu n ity to be co nsi dered f or a p ositi on, and it w ou ld be im p ossible to p lace a m one tary va l ue o n tha t o p p ortuni ty
. S ec o nd, the b al an ce o fthe eq u itie s fa vo re d t h e U n ion be c au se th e B oa rd w ou ld su fferno i nj ur y a s th e Uni o n di d no t se ekt o res to r e th e te achers t o the i r f o r m erpo si ti o ns b utmer ely t o ha ve the Bo a r d i mpl e men ta p r o c e du r e f o r the r e t e nt i on o fl a i doffteach ers. T hird , there cou ld be n o conc eivable h a rm to the pu bl i c re sul ti ng fro m the consi derat i on of t enured te ac he r s f o r e xi st i ng v aca nc i es . The c o ur t th er efo r e en te r ed a n i nj u n c t i o n : ( 1 ) d i r e c t i n gth e B o a r d t o r e s c i nd th e d ischa rges of tenu red teach ers un d e r the B oard ’s Ju n e 1 5, 20 10 r es olu tio n ; (2 ) d ire c tin g th e B oa rd to p ro m u lg a t e , i n c o ns ul t a t i o n wi th the Uni o n an d a ft e r g o o df ai th neg oti ati ons, a set o f r ecal lr ule s co m pli ant with 105 I LCS 5/34

- 18 ( 31 ) w i th i n 3 0 day s; a nd ( 3) e nj o i ni ngthe Board fro m co nd ucti ng future l ayo ff s in a si m i l ar m an n er u n til re c all ru les h ad be en p ro m u lga te d

. T h e B o ard ap p ealed

. On Oc tober 13, 2010, the B oard fi l ed a m o ti o n t o s ta y the pe r m an en t i nj unc ti o n pe ndi ng t h e o u tcom e of th is app eal, w hich the d istri ct cou rt gr anted. The U ni on s ubsequentl y fi l ed a m oti on t o expedi t e thi s a pp e a l, wh i c h wa s g r a nt e d.

II. A N A L Y S IS W e r ev i ew the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s l egal de te r m i na ti o ns d e n ov o, an d its find in gs of fac t fo r c lea r er ro r. P ro’s Sports B ar & Gril l, Inc. v. City o f C ountry Club H il ls , 58 9 F
. 3d 865, 870 (7th C ir. 2009).6 N o. 10

- 3396 A
. D u e P ro c es s C laim “The Fo urte enth Am endm ent’ s pro ceduralpro tect i on ofpro pertyi s a sa feguar d of th e secur i ty ofi nter est s that a p er so n h as alre ad y a c q u i r ed in s p ec ific b en efit s.” Bd. of Regents v. Ro th , 40 8 U.S
. 56 4, 57 6 ( 1972 ) . T o p revai lo n a cl ai m f or depri vati on of proper ty w i thout du e process , a pla i nti ffm ust e stabl i sh thatshe hol ds a pr ote cted proper ty i nter est
. C le veland Bd
. of Educ. v. Loud er m il l , 47 0 U
. S. 53 2, 54 6- 47 ( 1985 )
. Pro pertyi nter ests ar e not c re at ed by th e C on st itu tio n, bu t a re “ c re at ed an d th eir d im en sions are d efi ne d by e x isti ng rules or und ersta nd i ngs that s tem fr om an ind ependent so urce such as st at e la w .” Id. at56 1. Pro perty inte re sts m ay ar i se by w ay ofst atutes, r egul ati ons, m unici pal o rdi nances, o r by wa y o f a n e xp r e s s o r i mpl i e d c o nt r a c t, s uc h a s “ r ul es or und er sta nd i ngs that s ecure cer tain benefits and that supp or t cl ai m s o fenti tl em en t to bene fi ts. ” Cove l l v. M enkis , 595 F.3d 673 , 675-76 (7th C ir. 2010). An i ndi vi dualha s a pr o per ty i nt er es t i n a b en efi t i fs he has m or e than an “abstr act need” for, o r “unil ate ra l e x p ec ta tio n ” o f, th at be n efit

. R oth , 4 08 U. S
. a t 57 7. The i nd i vi du alm ust hav e a l egi ti m ate cl ai m o fenti tl em ent. Id. In the em plo ym ent c onte xt, a proper ty i nter estexi sts “w hen an e m plo yer ’ s di scr eti on i s cl early lim i ted so that the e m p loy ee cannot be deni ed em plo ym ent unl ess sp ec ific c on d itio n s a re m et .” Bu tt i t t a v. Ci ty of Chi cago , 9 F
. 3d 1198 , 12 02 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93)
. If a co urt deter m i nes that an i nd i vi du alhol ds a pr ote cted pro pertyi nter est, th e q u es tio n be c om es w h at p ro c es s is d u e. Lou d erm il l , 470 U
. S. at54 1.N o. 10

- 3396 7 I n I l l i noi s, te nured te acher s cannot be di schar ged except forcause : A p p oin tm en ts an d p ro m ot ion s o fte ac h er s s h all be m ad e for m erit only, an d after satisf acto ry ser vi ce f or a proba ti onar y per i od .

. . appoi ntm ents of teach ers s hal l b e co m epe r m ane nt, subj ect to rem ov al f orcause i n the m anner provi ded by Se c tio n 34 -85
. 105 I LC S 5/35- 84 ( em phasi s add ed). Se cti on 34 -85 pro vi des: “N o teac h er e m plo yed bythe boar d ofeducati on sh all a fte r se rv in g t h e p ro b a t ion ar y p er iod sp ec ified in sect i on 3 4- 84 be r em ove d excep t for ca use .” (em p h as is ad d ed ). Thu s, te nu re d teache rs i n I l l i noi s hav e a pro perty in te re st in th eir co n tin u ed em p loy m en t. SeeLouderm il l, 470 U
. S. at53 5- 39 ( sta te sta tute p ro vi ding that cl ass i fi ed c ivil se rv ice em p loy ee s w er e e n tit led to ret a inth eir p os iti ons du ring g oo d behavi orand proh ibi ti ng di sm i ssa l ex c ep t fo r b ad be h av i o r c re at ed a p ro p er ty int er es t in c on tin u ed em p loy m en t); Per ry v . Sin de r m ann , 408 U
. S. 593, 601 ( 1972 ) (w ritten con tract w ith an ex p lic it te nu re pr o v i s i o n e v i de nc e d a f o r malu nd e r s t a nd i ngtha ts up port ed a te acher ’ s cl ai m o fenti tl em ent t o continued empl o y m en t)
. I fa t enur ed te ac he r i s fi r ed wi th o ut cause, thi s i s a depri vati on of proper ty, and the teacher need onl y show that i t w as done w i thout du e pr oce ss ofl aw to prove a vi ol ati on of the Four tee nth A m endm ent. Se eBig b y v . Chi cago , 766 F.2d 105 3, 1056 ( 7th Cir. 1985). “The usualtho ugh not excl usi ve m odern m eani ng o f [du e proc ess] is not ice of ch arges and an op p ortu nity for a8 N o. 10

- 3396 h ear i ng . . . . ” Id. a t1 0 5 8
. We ha v e , h o we v e r, r e c o g ni zed that the r e i s “ a n e xc e pt i o n t o a he a r i ng r i g ht whe n [ a] disc harg e i s ca us ed byr eor gani zati on. ” M i s e k v. Ci ty of C hic ago , 78 3 F
. 2d 98, 10 0- 01 ( 7th Ci r. 19 86)
. I l l i noi s co urts ha v e a l s o f o un d tha tp r e - t e r mi na t i o n he a r i ng s a r e u nne ces sa ry be for e g oo d fait h ec on o m ic la yo ffs. See Lan d v
. B d. of Ed uc. of Chi. , 75 7 N
. E .2d 9 12 ( I l l

. A pp . Ct. 20 01) (“ Lan d I”) (fin d in g t h at te ac h er s w h o w er e p lac ed in re ass i gnm ent poo lf or10 m ont h s but co uld notfi nd j obs w e re not en titl ed to pre-term ination h earings be fore bei ng te rm in at ed). S i m i l ar l y, we have found that a pre ter m i nati on hea ring i s no t neces sa rybefor e a l ayo ffso lon g as ad eq u at e po st -te rm in at ion p ro c ed u re s are a v ailab l e “t o [ det er m i ne ] whethe r the t er m i natio n un derthe auspi ces ofa [ l ayo ffi s] per m i ssibl e o r not” and w hether i t i s “ bei ng used t o m askan ind i vi du al i zed, m er i t-base d acti on. ” La lva ni v . Co o kC o un ty, 396 F. 3d 91 1, 91 5- 17 ( 7th C ir. 2005) (“ Lalvani II”)
. But the teac h er s here do not claim ( althou gh th ey su ggest) th at th e layoffs w ere pr ete xtual

. Instea d, they ar gue that they a re enti tl ed to ano ppo r tu ni tyt o s ho w tha t th eya r e qua l i fi ed f o r v ac an c ies th at c on tin u e to ar ise w ith in th e C h ica g o P u b l ic S c h o o ls y s t e m. W e h av e no t y etc o ns i der ed whethe r t enur ed te ac hers a r e e n t i t l e d t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r r e a s s i g n me n t
. We c a me cl o se t o a ns wer i ngtha t que st i o n in M im s v. B d. of Ed uc. , 5 2 3 F
. 2 d 7 1 1 , 7 1 5 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 7 5 )
. T h e p l a i n t i f f s i n Mi ms wer e femal e ci vi ls er vi ce e m pl o y ee s o fthe Boa r d who wer e l ai d o ffb ec au se o fa sh o r ta g e o ffunds a nd s o ug ht an o pp or tuni ty to dem onst ra te thei r quali fi cati ons afterN o. 10

- 3396 9 learni ng that si x m en w er e hi re d t o tem pora ri l y fi l lth eir posi ti ons. Id. at 713-15. W e foun d that althou gh “a l ayoff is les s d ra st ic t h an a d isc h ar ge an d m ay n otreq u ire all the pr oce du ra lsa feguar ds neces sar y bef or e t er m i nati on th roug h d ischa rge, [the laid off ] pla i nti ff s had a prop er ty in te re st in t h eir co n tin u ed em p loy m en t, n otj u st in t h eir sta tus a s ci vi lse rv ants. ” Id. at71 5. W e s ta te d : Plaintiff s at least w ere ent itl ed to an op p ortu n ity to d em on st ra te th at th ey w er e c ap ab le ofper f or m i ng the w or k a ssi gned to the si x tem porary em p loyees. T h e issue of w he th er plaintiff s could perfor m the w or k, unl i ke that ofthe need to cut ba ck du e t o l oss o ffedera lfund in g, w as one on wh i ch pl ai nti ff s m i gh t h av e be en abl e t o co nt r ibut e i nfo r m at i o n a nd v al i d pe r su as i o n, possibl y r esul ting i n a t em pora ryco nti nuati on of e m p loy m en t. Id. I n Mi ms , how ev e r , t he plaintiff s, un li ke th e teach ers he re, also claim ed that they w ere ent itl ed to a pre-layoff h ea rin g. Id. a t 7 1 4
. W e fo u n d th at th e B oa rd failed in i ts du ty to est abl i sh a proce du re b y w hi ch an e m plo yee could o btain re vi ew o fa l ayo ffdeci si on t o ensure that i t was no t f o r a n i m per m i ss ibl e r ea so n o r to de m o nst ra te th at h e or sh e sh ou ld h av e be en r e t ain ed

. Id. at 715. T h er efo re , Mi ms , wh i l e gu i ding our anal ysi s, does not p rovide a definitive answ er. To deter m ine wh etherthe tea cher s hav e a pro perty i nt e r e s tth a te n t i t l e s th e m t o a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e c o n-10 N o. 10

- 3396

A lthoug h thes e protect ions w ere rem oved f rom Sec ti on 34- 84, 2 both A pp endix H ofthe parties ’ col le ct ive bargaini ng agreem ent and Sec tion 504. 2 ofthe Chicago Pub li c Sc hools Polic y M an u a l (“Lay of fPoli cy”) prov ide f or a r ete nti on procedu re f or t ea c he rs whos e s er vi c es ar e no l onge r re qui re d due t o a drop i n s tu d ent enroll m ent or the cl osure ofan at tendance (co n tin u ed ...) s i d e r e d f o r n e w v a c a n c i e s , we l o o k to I l l i n o i s l a w. See Loud er m il l , 47 0 U.S
. at54 6- 47. P riorto 19 95, S ecti on 3 4- 84 o fthe I l l i no i s S ch ool C ode pr o vi ded th at“ r es er ve t ea ch

er s” had var i ous r ecal lr i ghts. A r ese rv e tea c h er was defi ne d a s “a t ea ch erno t o n a dm i ni st r at i ve pa y r o l l, who has a r ating o f s atis f acto ryo r bett erand w hose se rv i ce i s no l o ng er r equi r ed be ca us e o f a dec r ea se i n stud en t m em b er sh ip , a c h an ge in s u bj ec t re q u ire m en ts w ith in the a tte n d an c e ce ntero rg ani zati on, o r the c l osing o fan att endance cent er . ” 1 05 I LC S 5/34- 1. 1 ( 1994 )
. Rese rv e tea cher s were gi ven the o pp or tuni ty to ap p ly f or fi l l i ng new and vacant tea chi ng posi ti ons i n the schoo l sy st em th r ou g h a pr o ce ss c o l l ec ti ve l y b ar g aine d b y the Board and the U ni on. 10 5 I LC S 5/34- 84 ( 1994 )
. I f a r ese rv e te ac he r was no t se l ec te d to fil la v ac an t po si ti o n, the tea cherwould be em plo yed bythe Board in a posi ti on that w as colle c ti vel y b ar gained. A cer ti fi ed re ser ve t e a c h e r n o t s e l e c t e d f o r a v a c a n c y wo u l d b e a ppo i nt ed on an i nt er i m b as i s f o ra t ea ch i ngpo si ti o n. Reser ve tea cher s a l so had the r i ght t o re m ai n em plo yed by th e B oard and receive full sa lary and ben efi ts for a p er iod of 25 sc h oo l m on th s, aft er w h ich tim e th e y c o u ld be ho nor abl y t er m i nated fro m se rv i ce. Id. 2N o. 10

- 3396 11

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 cen ter. Th e L ay off P olicy p ro v id e s t ha t teach ers w ho se s er vi c es ar e no l onge r re qui re d ar e t o be gi vena “n otice of rem ov al.” T eac he rs con tinu e to rec eiv e full p ay a n d b en efits f or a l i m i t ed per i od oft i m e. Upon n ot i c e ofr em oval, the t ea c he r re c ei ves a l i s tofal l une nc um ber ed vac antpos i t i ons f or whi c h he or s he i s qua l i fi ed. Duri ng the fi rs tthi rty s c hoo l day s afternoti ce ofrem oval, the te nured te a cher is perm it ted t o i nt er vi ew ats c hoo l s ofhi s or he r ch oo sing withoutbe i ng assign ed ad d ition al d u ties. Sch oo l p r i nc ip als are ob liga ted to inter v iew te n u red teach ers w ho ap p ly u nless the p osition is fil led b efore th e inter v i ew tak es p lace. T he B oa rd is also ob ligated to offer t eacher s “int eri m as si gnm ents
. ” Ifthe te acher re m ai ns i n the i nt er i m pos i t i on f or m or e than60 d ay s , he or s he i s pe rm ane nt l y a s sign ed t o thatpos i t i on. Eveni fthe teac her does nothave a n int eri m as si gnm ent, the te acher m ay work a s a sub stitute t ea c he r. I faft er10 s c hoo l m onths the ten u red tea c h e r ha s no t be en ap p oin ted to a p erm an en t po sit i on, h e o r s he i s h on or a bl y t e r m i na t e d. I n 199 5, the I l l i noi s S choolC od e underwent a s i gni fi cant re vi si on. A l l sta tutory re fer ences to re ser ve tea cher s, al ong w i th the i r re cal lr i ghts und erS ecti on 3 4- 84, we r e de l e t e d, a nd 1 0 5 I LCS5 /34- 18( 3 1 ) wa s a dde d. Se cti on 5 /3 4- 18( 31) pro vi des i n re l evantpartthat : The boar d .

. . shal l have pow er . . . to p ro m ulg ate r ul es e st ab l i sh i ngpr o ce dur es governi ngthe l ay o ffo r r edu ct i o n in fo r ce ofe m pl o y ee s an d the re cal lo fsuch e m plo yee s, i ncl ud i ng, but not l i m i ted to, cri ter i a f or such l ayo ff s, re du cti ons in f o r ce o r r ec al l r i g ht s o fs uche m pl o y ee s an d the we i g h tt o b e g i v e n t o a n y p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i o n.12 N o. 10

- 3396 S uchc riteri a sh al lt ak e i nt o a cc o untf ac to r s i ncl ud i ng, but not l i m i ted to, qual i fi cati ons, cer ti fi cati ons, exper i ence, per f or m ance r atings o r evaluat i o n s , a n d a n y o th e r f a c t o r s r e l a t i n g t o a n e mplo yee ’ s j ob perf or m ance. Th e Bo a r d c o nc e de s tha t“ [ p] r i o r t o the 1 9 9 5 a men dm en ts, ifCP S hon orably dism issed or lai d offa teach er, the t ea c h er had a c l ear l y del i neate d proper ty i nter est i n continued e m p loy m ent, wh i ch w as setf or th i n Se cti on 3 4- 84. ” Th e Board ar gues, however, thatS ecti on 3 4- 18 (31 ) is an au th or izin g s ta tu te an d d oe s n otco m p el it to p rom ulgate regulations, and there fo r e , the tea ch ers a r e n o tenti t l e d t o b e r e c a l l e d. T he Bo a r d a l s o c o nt e nd s th atthe t ea ch er s ca nno t hav e a pr o per tyi nt er es t i n a recall p roced ure becau se a proce d ura l safegu ard f or a proper ty i nter estcannoti tse l fcr eat e a pro pertyi nter est
. W hile i t is tru e th at Section 34-18(31) i s not crys tal cl ear, i t co ntem pla tes thatthe Boa rd wil lpro m ulg ate r ule s “g ov er n in g t h e la yo ff .

. . andt h e re c all of su c h em p loy ee s,” n o t lay offs alon e. (em p h as is a d d ed ); s e ea l s o Po we l l v. Jo nes , 30 5 N
. E.2 d 166, 17 1 ( I l l

. 19 73) ( expla i ni ng tha t a l ayo ff i s “not, or dinar i l y, vi ew ed as a perm anent situati on”)
. The st atute furtherl i m i ts the Boa rd’ s di scr eti on by re quir i ng i t t o tak e v ar iou s cri ter i a ( quali fi cati o ns , c er ti fi ca ti o ns , expe r i en ce , pe r f o r m an ce r at i ng s, a nd evaluati ons) i nto acco unt. A l though there ar e n o I l l i noi s ca ses di re ctl y o n poi nt, thos e case s that have exam i ned the re l ati ons h ip betw een Se cti ons 34- 84, 34- 85, and 3 4- 18( 31) do not su ggest th att enur ed te ac he rs d o no t ha ve a r i g htt o b e co n-N o. 10

- 3396 13 si der ed f o r v ac an ci es , b ut, r athe r, tha t i t i s no w the Board’ s r esponsibi l i ty, i nstea d ofthe l egi sl atur e’ s, to for m u lat e p ro c ed u re s g o v e rn in g la yo ff an d rec all. In Lan d I , the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Cou rt c onsi dered wh ether te nur ed te ac he r s who wer e al l o wed 1 0 m o nths t o fi nd alternat e em p loym en t pu rsu an t to the B oard ’s l ayoff pol i cy but were unabl e t o fin d new p osi ti ons du ring tha t t i me we r e e nt i t l e d t o a h e a r i ngp r i o r t o b e i ngt e r mi na t e d. 757 N
. E.2 d at 9 15-16 . T h e co urt expla i ned that pri orto th e 19 95 a m en dm en ts , Sec ti o n 3 4- 84 g av e th e Bo ar d the au th or ity to la y o f f te n u re d te ac h er s, b u t t h at th is au th or ity w a s s u bj ec t t o “ an ex p licitse t o f res tr ict ion s,” w h ich ga ve “re se r v e t ea c h er s” 25 m on th s t o ob ta in an alt er n at ive p os itio n be for e t h e y c ou ld be h on or ab ly te rm in at ed from se rv ice
. Id. a t9 2 0
. T he 1 9 9 5 a men dm ents “si m plyel i m i nated al lpro vi si ons r efer ring to
‘ re se rv e t eacher s’ and added subse cti on 3 1 t o sect i on 3 4- 18 , g r a nt i ng the po we r t o the Bo a r d t o pr o mul g ate i ts ow n p ro c e d u r e s ‘go ve rn in g t h e la yo ff or re d u c tio nin f or ce o fem p loy ees. ’ ” Id. A fte r ex am in in g t h e Illino is S c ho o lCo de b o th b e f o r e and af t e r the 1 9 9 5 a men dm ents, the cour t co ncl ud ed that “the am en dm ents re gard ing layoff s w ere pr o ce dur alc ha ng es , no t su bs ta nti ve changes

. ” Id. T h e c ou r t a lso m ad e t w o re lev an t fin d in gs . First, i t co nc l ude d tha t the l ay o ff s wer e no t g o ve r ne d b y s ec ti o ns 34- 84 an d 35- 85 and the hea ring pro cedures conta i ned i n th os e s ec tio n s. Id. S eco nd , the cour t found that nei therthe B oa rd’ s pol i cy norS ecti on 3 4- 18( 31) cr eat ed a p r o pe r t y i nt e r e s ti n the t e a c he r s ’ c o nt i nu e d e m plo y-14 N o. 10

- 3396

The Cour tr eve rs ed i n pa rtf or the t ri al c our tt o de t er m i ne 3 whe the r the Bo a r d p r operl y de l e ga t e d i t s a utho r i t y t o de c i de w h o m t o l a y o ff. Id. at26 1. The Cour tal s o n ot ed thatthe Bo ard’ s polic y w as not a “p rocedure” as p rovided i n Sect ion 34- 1 8 (3 1 ). Id. m ent, m eani ng tha t the n oti ce a nd hear i ng pro cedures r e qu i r e d i n c a s e s o f di s c ha r g e s “ f o r c a us e ” were i na pp lica b le t o lay offs

. Id. a t 925. The co urt em phasi zed that to req u ire a p re -lay off h ea rin g w ou ld “h a n g an an vil” ar ou n d th e B oa rd ’s n ec k. Id. The I l l i no i s S up r e me Co ur ta ffi r med the a pp e l l a te cou rt’s f in d ing tha t the Boa rd had the au th ority to lay off te nur ed te ac he r s. In Land v. Bd
. of Educ. of Chi. , 781 3 N
. E
. 2d 249, 256 (I ll

. 2002), (“ Land II”) , the Court expla i ned th ati t ha d l ongb ee n e st ab l i sh ed th ata m o ngthe unenum er ate d pow er s o fthe Board was the author i ty to l ay offem plo yee s in go od f ai th f orl ack ofwork. Pri or to 1995 , “l i m i ts on that power were s et o u t in sect i on 3 4- 84. ” Id. T h e 1995 am endm ents did notel i m i nate or re d u c e t h e B oa rd ’s p ow er . Id. “ I ns te ad, b y de l et i ng th e l ay o ffpr o vi si o n fr o m se ct i o n 3 4- 84 a nd a ddi ng se ct i o n 3 4- 18 ( 31 ) , the l eg i sl atu re g av e th e Bo ar d the author i ty to f or m ula te and i m ple m ent its own pro ced ure s regard ing layoffs rather th an bind ing the Boa rd to a l egi sl ati vel y m andated proce du re . ” Id. N ei therthe 1995 am endm ents northe I l l i noi s ca ses const rui ng the m sugg estthatte nured t eachers ar e no t en tit led to anop p or tu n ity to sh ow th at th ey are qu alifi ed f orvac anci es afteran e c onom i c l ayo ff

. A l thoughN o. 10

- 3396 15 i n Land I the c ourtf ound t h at the t eacher s co uld not ho l d o n t o the i r po si ti o ns i nde fi ni te l y b y v i r tu e o fb eing ten ure d , the co urt did not d ecid e w he th er the tea ch ers w er e e nti tl ed to be re cal l ed, as the te ach er s in that case wer e pl ac ed i n a r ea ssignm en t po o lf o r 1 0 m o nths a nd on ly a rg u ed th at th ey co u ld n otbe su b se q u en tly te rm in at ed

. Lan d I

, 757N .E .2d at9 25 . Fu rt h er , Lan d I i s no t contr ol l i ng on the questi on of w hether the teac h er s have a federa lco nsti tuti onal l y pr ote cted pro pertyi nter est because , al though the teac hers ’ r i ghts deri ve fro m st ate l aw , i t i s federa ll aw thatdeter m i nes whether thos e r i g ht s co ns ti tu te a pr o per tyi nt er es t f o r pur po se s o fthe Four tee nth A m en dm ent. SeeTown of Cas t l eRockv. G o nz a les , 545 U
. S. 748, 757 (2005 ). Contrary t o the Boa rd’ s co ntention , the l anguage used i n Lan d Ia nd Land IIsugg est s that the Boar d now has th e au th ority to form ulate its ow n p roced ure f or l ayoff and rec al l, n ot that the Boa rd m ay si m plyhave no procedure w hatso eve r. These l i m i ts on the Boar d’s disc re ti o n, al o ngwi tht enur e, whi ch, a s we r ec o g ni ze d i n Mi ms , gave pl ai nti ff s a prop erty i nter esti n thei r continued em plo ym ent a n d enti tl ed them to an o pp or tuni ty to dem onst ra te that they w er e capabl e of perf or m i ng te m pora rywork, gi ve ri se to a l egi tim ate expecta ti on that t e nu r e d t e a c he r s who a r e l a i d o ff wi l l b e g i v e n the o pportunity t o show that they a re qual i fied f ornew vacanci es f ora re aso nabl e per i od ofti m e. Fo r, as Mi ms i m p li ci tly r ec o g ni ze s, i fa “ per m an en t” a ppo i nt m en t m eans anythi ng , it atl eas t m eans that i fvac anci es ar i se du ring o r shor tl y a ftera l ayo ff, the tea cher s who or i gi nal ly hel d “perm anent” appoint m ents shoul d be g i ven16 N o. 10

- 3396

T he B oa rd also co nte nd s that Se ction 4.5 of t h e Illinois 4 E d u catio na l L ab or R elatio ns A ct, 11 5 IL C S 5/4.5, also sug g ests thatt en ur ed t ea c he rs ha ve no pro per t y i nt er es tf ol l owin g a n e c on omi c l a yo ff

. S e c t i on4
. 5 c on c erns “sub j e c t s o fc ol l e c t i ve b arg ain ing ” an d states tha t a d ecision to lay o ff e m p loy ees is (co n tin u ed ...) a m ea n in gfu l op p or tu n ity to sh ow th a t th ey rem ain quali fi ed to fi l ltho se posi ti ons. And, a ltho ug h i t i s true tha t ane nt i tl ementt o no th i ng b u t p rocedure cannot be the bas i s fora proper ty i nt er es t, de ta i l ed pr o ce dur alr equi r ement s ar e r el ev an t to w h et h er a s u b st an tiv e p ro p er ty int er es t e x ist s. Teige n v . R enfro w, 51 1 F .3d 10 72 , 108 1 (1 0t h C ir. 20 07 ); see also B utti tt a , 9 F. 3d 1198 , 12 02- 04 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ( hol ding that a pr o vi si o n in the I l l i no i s Pe ns i o n Co d e s ettingf o r ththe proce du re to be f ol l owed i n deter m i ni ng wh ether a n offi cerr ecei vi ng di sabi l i ty benefi ts sh oul d be r etur ned to ac tiv e d u ty cr ea te d in p olic e o ff i c e r s “a n int er es t in bei ng r etur ned to the depar tm ent foran o pp or tuni ty to dem onst ra te thei r fi tness f oract i ve du ty”); D e e n v . D arosa , 4 14 F. 3d 731, 73 5- 36 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( hol ding that pol icy di re cti ve that gave o ffi cer s a r i ght t o appear b efo re a b oa rd to sh ow th at t h ey co u ld ret u rn to fu ll du ty gave o ffi ceran inter es t in an o pp or tuni ty to show that he co uld r etur n to fullduty)

. H er e, the lim its o n th e Bo ar d’s d i sc r et i o n fo und in S ec ti o n 3 4- 18 ( 31 ) a l o ng w i th the te acher s’ ri ght t o a “ perm anent” appoint m ent, give ri se to a l egitim ate ex p ecta tion th at lai d -off teac he rs w i l lbe consi dered f or va canci es f ora re aso nabl e per i od ofti m e. 4N o. 10

- 3396 17

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 a “ per m i s s i ve” s ubj ec t of bar gai ni ng between the Boar d and the Uni on. 11 5 I LCS 5 /4. 5. Bec aus e thi s c as e d oe s n ot con c er n the Boar d’ s dut y o r lack the re oft o ba rg ai n wi th the Uni on, but i ns t e a d c on c erns whe the r the t e a c he r s h a ve a r i gh tt o be c ons i der ed for vac an cies, Se c t i on 4. 5 i s no tr el eva ntt o the iss u e b efo re u s. H av in g fou n d th at th e t ea c h er s h av e a co gn i z ab le pr o pe r t y i nt e r e s t, we no w t urn t o the qu e s t i o n ofwh at proce ss i s due to them

. W heth er an e m plo yee has recei ved al l the proce ss that w oul d hav e been d u e in co nn e c t i o n wi th hi s o r he r t e r mi na t i o n i s a qu e s t i on o f fed e r a l la w . Lalvani v. C ookCo unty, 26 9 F
. 3d 785, 79 3 ( 7th C ir. 2001) (“ Lalvani I”)
. The fu nd am entalr equi re m ent o f du e pr oce ss i s “ the o pp or tuni ty to be hear d a t a m eani ngful ti m e a nd i n a m eani ngful m anner. ” Bair d v
. Bd. of Educ. f or War r e n Cm ty. U ni t Sc h. D i s t
. No. 20 5 , 389 F
. 3d 685, ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( quoti ng M at he ws v. Eld r i dge, 42 4 U.S
. 31 9, 348- 49 ( 1976 ) )
. The fl exibl e a pp ro ach to due process a d o pte d i n M athe ws r equi r es the c o ur t to wei g h “ th e signifi cance ofthe pri vate i nter estati ssue and the r i sk o fa n erroneou s depr i va ti o n o ftha t i nt er es t unde r the p ro c ed u re s e m p loy ed by th e s t a t e , aga in st th e p ro b ab le be ne fi ts o fa ny a ddi ti o na lpr o cedu r alpr o te ct i o ns a nd the s tat e’ s inter esti n avo id ing the fi scaland adm i ni str ativ e b u rd en s th at t h os e a d d itio n al p ro te c tio n s w ou ld im p os e.” Lalvani I

, 269 F.3d at79 3; see genera llyC ha ney v. Sub ur b an Bus D i v. of theReg’ l Tr ans p. Aut h. , 5 2 F
. 3d 623, 62 7 ( 7th Ci r. 1 99 5) (“W e a pp l y the M athe ws an aly sis to both the pre- depri vati on and post
- depri vati on phases of [ a p lai nt iff’ s] case.”).18 N o. 10

- 3396

The teac hers al so c ontend that they are entit le d to preferenc e 5 for v ac anc i es . Butthe ava i l abi l i t y ofa pos t
- t er m i nat i on pro c ed u reby w hich the teac hers can s how thatthe y are qua l i fi ed for vac anc i es i s al l thati s ne c es s ar y to s at i s fy due pr oc e s s . Th e r e i s no guara nt e e o fa pa r t i c ul a r s ub s t a nt i ve outcom e. Th e di s t r i c t c o u r t f o u n d th a t man y v a c a n c i e s we re no t 6 lis te d o n th e w eb sit e. T h e t ea c h er s c on te n d th at th e y a re en tit led to a re c all pr o c e d u r e . We a g r e e . T h e t e a c h e r s s h o u l d b e g i ve n a

5 m eani ngful op p or tuni ty to show that they a re qual i fi ed for n ew va c an c ies for a rea so n ab le p e riod of tim e. See B u ttit ta , 9 F
. 3 d a t1 2 0 4 ( fi nd i ngtha ta p o l i c e o ffi c er w as gi ven all p ro c ess due to hi m bec ause the pol i ce departm ent g ave hi m an o pp or tu n ity to show he w as qu ali fi ed f or active d ut y). W e hav e pre viou s ly ack now ledge d that an em p loyee’s in te re st in re ta in in g h is o r h e r j ob is su b st an tia l. Lalvani I , 269 F.3 d a t 79 3 ( ci tingBrock v. Roa dw ay E xpres s, Inc. , 48 1 U. S
. 25 2, 2 63 ( 19 87 ) )
. The Bo ar d c o nt en ds th atthe te a c he r s r e c e i v e d a l l o f the pr o c e s s tha t wa s du e t o them because i t hel d tw o j ob f air s and a r ésum é work shop and poi nted the tea cher s to a w ebsi te l i sting va canci es. 6 H owever, the Board’s content i on ca nnot be squar ed w i th the Boar d’s seve ra ladm i ssi ons on th e reco rd that it h as “n o re c all p ro c ed u r e i n p lac e.” T h e B oa rd sim p ly ha s not est ablished a proce d ure w he reby laid-off tea cher s ca n dem onst ra te thei r quali fi catio ns f ornew te ac hi ngpositi o ns , no r ha s th e Bo ar d a nno unc ed th eN o. 10

- 3396 19

T his is no t an em p ty form ality , as the d issent asserts. W hile it 7 m ay t ur n o utthatno t e v ery lai d- offt ea c he r i s r eh i re d, the teac hers w il l get the benefitofthe rec all procedu re e nacte d b y th e B o a rd p u rs u a n t to Se ct io n 34 -1 8 (3 1 ). c rit er ia t o b e u se d in e v a l u at in g t ea c h er s w h o a p p ly f orte achi ng j obs

. W i thout anyp ro c ed u re s fo r re c all, the r i sk ofdepri vati on t o the t eacher s i s s i gni fi cant. Recogni zi ng tha t i t l acke d t h e ins ti tuti onalco m petence to de fi ne the e xa ctc o nt o ur s o ftho se pr o ce dur es , the dist ri ct cour t f ound that the Board, i n l i ght of Se cti on 3 4- 1 8 ( 3 1 ) , w o u l d b e i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o d o s o . We agr ee. In enact i ng S ect ion 34- 18( 31) , the I l l i noi s Gener al As s e mb l y c o n t e mp l a t e d t ha t t h e B o a r d w o u l d p r o mu l g a t e r e g u l a t i o n s e s t ab l i s h i n gs u c h p r o c e d u r e s , p r e s u mab l y wi th o uti nc ur r i nge xc es si ve c o st s. R equi r i ngthe Board t o prom ulgate r egul ati ons und erS ecti on 3 4- 18( 31) gi ves tea cher s the be nefi t o fa pr oce du re bywh i ch they ca n de mon s t r a t e the i r qua l i fi c a t i o ns f o r n e w po s i t i o ns, w i thout im p osi ng exce ssi ve adm i ni str ati ve and fi scal c o s t s o n the Bo a r d. 7

B. S cope o fInj uncti ve Rel i ef W e r ev i ew the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s en try o fpr el i m i na ry and perm anent i nj uncti ve re l i ef f oran abuse o fdi scr eti on . S i e r r a Cl u b v . F r an kl i n Cn ty. Po we ro f Il l
. , L
. L
. C. , 54 6 F
. 3d 918, 93 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08). “ A p l ai nti ffse eking a prel i m i nary i nj uncti on m ust est abl i sh that he i s l ike ly to su c ceed o n the m er i ts, thathe i s l i kel y t o suffer20 N o. 10

- 3396 irr ep arable ha rm i n th e a b s e n c e of p reli m inary reli ef, that the b al ance of equi ti es ti ps in hi s f avo r, and that an i nj uncti on i s in the pu b lic i nter est
. ” Wi n t e rv . NR DC, 12 9 S
. Ct
. 3 65 , 3 74 ( 20 08 )
. The s ta nda r d f o r a pe r m an en t i nj uncti on i s the sa m e a s fora prel i m i naryi nj uncti on except that the pl ai nti ffm ust s how actual succe ss on th e m er its
. Id. at 381. A l though cour ts use the t er m inol ogy“i rr eparabl e har m , ” when the i ssue i s w h ether to g r a n ta p e r ma n e n ti nj u n c t i o n, th e b u r d e n i s o n the pla i nti ffto sho w thatdam age s a re i nadeq u ate. Wa lgreen Co. v. Sara Cre e k Prop
. Co. , 9 66 F.2d 273, 275 (7th C ir. 1992). The tea c h er s s ucceeded on the m er i ts. The di str i ct c o ur t ’ s e v a l ua t i o n o fthe o the r f a c t o r s wa s a l s o s o un d. D am ages w ou ld n ot ad eq ua tely com p en sate th e teach ers b e c a us e i two ul d b e di ffi cul tt o p l a c e a v a l ue o n the o ppo r tu ni tyt o de m o ns tr at e th ei r qua l i fi ca ti o ns f o r v ac an t po si tions. The b al an ce o fthe e qui ti es t i ps i n f av o r o fthe tea cher s be cause they have a s ubstanti ali nteres t in re ma i n i n ge mp l o y e d a n d r e q u i r i n gth e B o a r d t o p r o mulg ate the rul es conte m pla ted by Se ction 34

- 18( 31) w oul d not im p os e si gni fi cant b urdens. N orwould r equir i ng the Boar d to al l ow the te acher s t o show that they ar e qual i fi ed f orvac anci es negat i vel y i m pact the publ i c. H owever, the sco pe ofthe di str i ct c ourt ’ s inj uncti on shoul d have be en nar ro w er . The di str i ct c ourto rder ed th e Bo ar d t o c o ns ul t wi ththe Uni o n in pr o m ulgating re gul ati ons und erS ecti on 3 4-18(3 1)
. A l though c onsul tatio n w ith th e U n ion m ay ex p ed ite th e p ro c es s o fp ro m u lgat i ng the r u les, ther e i s no thi ng i n Se cti on 3 4- 18( 31) th a t r eq u i r e s c o o p e r a t i o nwi th th e Un i o n, a n d we decl i ne to i m pose such a re quir em ent.N o. 10

- 3396 21

T he d issent con ten d s th at the te ach ers are n ow le ft in “a state 8 of li m bo.” Bu t as evidenced by the Bo ard’ s Lay of f Poli cy dea l i ng wi th s c hoo l c l osin gs , the re i s no thi ng un us ual abo ut the te a ch ers m aint aini ng a connect ion t o the sc hools after bei ng l ai d off

. I tm ake s no di ffer en c e thatthe t ea c he rs ar e not d raw ing a salar y or re ceiv ing b en efits. The dis tr i ct c ourtal so or dere d t h at the t eacher s’ di sc h a r g e s b e r e s c i nde d. T h e t e a c h e r s c o n c e d e a n d we agr ee that they ar e n ot enti tl ed to bac k payo r to be pl ac ed o n th e pay r o l l g o i ng f o r war d. Howev er, the t ea ch

er s m u st h av e s om e c on n ec tio n t o th e C h ica go P u b lic Scho olsy ste m i n or der forthe B oa rd’ s r egul ati ons to apply t o the m . W e d o notr ev er se the de ci si o n o fthe d istri ct cou rt i n resc ind ing the disch arge s , bu t clari fy th atthe t ea ch er s ar e st i l lc o ns idered t o b e l ai d- o fft ea ch

er s. A s the di str i ct c ourtexpl ai ned, S ecti on 5 /3 4- 18( 31) conte m pla tes uni que ri ghts f orl ai d-o ff, as o pp ose d to te rm in at ed , em p loy ee s. R es c in d in g t h e d isc h ar ge s o n ly al l ows the t each er s to tak e a dvantage o fthe opportunity to show th eir q u ali fi cati ons f ornew vacanci es f ora re ason able pe riod of ti m e. In t his con tex t, th eir “laid-off” st atus do es not i m pl i ca te pa sto r futur e pay m en t orbene fi ts. 8

I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e A FFIRM the di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s fi nd i ng tha tt e nu r e d, l a i do fft ea ch er s ha ve a r es i dualpr o per tyr i g hti n the e ve nt ofan e conom i c l ayo ff

. W e a l so dir ect the cour t t o r edr aft i ts i nj unc ti o n t o c o nf o r m wi ththi s o pi ni o n.22 N o. 10

- 3396 M A NI ON, Cir cu i tJudg e, d iss en tin g in p a r t, co n c u rrin g in part. The c ou rt’ s deci si on t ake s a vague enabl i ng st atute gi vi ng the Boar d the pow er to m ake r ecal lpro cedures an d turn s it into an affirm ative r ig h t f or U nion m em bers to have re cal lpro cedures. N ot onl y doe s i t g i ve U ni on m em ber s th e ri ght t o these pro cedures, i t e l evat es these proce du re s t o the pl ac e of proper ty ri ghts, co ver i ng the m w i th the guarante es ofthe Du e Pr oce ss Clause

. There f or e, Iha ve t wo pr i nc i palpo i nt s o fdi sa g r ee m en t wi ththe cou rt’s d e c is ion. First, neith er the sta tu te nor th e surro u n d ing co nd i ti ons that the c ourt ’ s o pini on a l l ud es to gi ves the Union m em b er s the r i ght t o re cal lpro cedures. Secon d , ev e n i f th e statu te p rovide d the U nion m em bers w i th the r i ght t o re cal lpro cedures, a perso n’s r i ght t o cer tain proc edures i s no t i tse l fa proper ty ri ght th at t h e D u e P ro c es s C lau se p ro te c ts
. Wal l ac ev. Rob i ns on , 940 F .2d 24 3, 24 6- 47 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91) ( en banc) ( “Pro m i ses ofpart i cul arpro cedures [ ] do notcr eat e l egitim ate claim s of en titl em en t.”)
.
I. Forr eas ons not i n the re cor d, the Union never ne gotiated wi ththe Bo ar d t o s ec ur e r ec al lr i g ht s i n the case o fan e conom i c l ayo ff

. I t was notan ov er si ght, since i t di d negot i ate f orand sec u re r ecal lr i ghts i n the case o f n o n - e c o no mi c l a y o ff s . Wh e n a n e c o n o mi c l a y o ffc a me ar ound l ast sum m er the U ni on fi l ed a g rievance, c l a i mi ngthe l a y o ffv i o l a t e d i t s c o nt r a c twi th the Bo a r d. T h e a rb i t r a t o r d i s a g r e e d , f i n d i n gth a tth e B o a r d c o mp l i ed w i th the co l l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent. W h ileN o. 10

- 3396 23 the Union appeal ed the a rbi tr ato r’ s deci si on, i t a l so to o k i t s c a s e t o fe d e r a l c o u r t
. I t d i d n ’ t c l a i m th a t th e l ayo ff s v i ol ate d the co ntra ct o r depri ved i ts m em ber s o f th e i r d u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s . R a th e r, i tc l a i me d th a ti t s me mbers w ere ent itl ed to recallproc ed ure s from the la yoff and that the B oa rd vi ol ate d thei r du e pr oce ss ri ghts by not creating th em . I t w an ted to m ake su re that every tim e a p os itio n op en s up , laid -off tea c h er s w ou ld

— in th e w ord s of th e d istri ct cou rt

— ha ve “ a f o o t i n the door

. ” C h ic a g o Teachers U nion v. B d. of Ed uc. II , 2 0 1 0 WL 3927 696, at *9 (N
. D. I l l

. 20 10)
. N or m al l y these proce du re s w oul d b e i ncl ud ed i n a col l ecti ve bar gainin g c ontract, buta g ain th e U ni o n n ev erne g o ti at ed f o r the m . S o , the U ni on a rg u ed that al though the pro cedures w er e no t i ncl ud ed i n the col l ecti ve bar gaini ng ag re em ent, they w er e nev er thel ess guar an te ed to i ts m em ber s thro ugh the e nabl i ng st atute thatgi ves the Board the pow erto cre ate thes e r ec all proce du re s. The di str i ct c ourtag re ed and thi s co urt affi rm s, fi n d in g the U ni on m em ber s hav e a proper ty i nter est i n yet
- to-be- cre ate d r ecal lp ro cedu re s that the Due Pro cess Cl ause prot ects
. The Du e Pr oce ss Clause pro tect s p ro pertyi nter est s. To s a y s o meo ne h a s a p r o pe r t y i nt e r e s ti s t o s a y they ha ve a l e g i t i ma t e c l a i m o fe n t i t l e me n t, th a ti s , s o me th i ng m o r e th an“ anabs tr ac t ne ed o r de si r e” a nd “ m ore tha n a unil ate ra lexpecta ti on. ” Tow n o f Cas t l eRock, Col o. v. Gonzales , 54 5 U.S
. 74 8, 76 5 ( 2005 ) ( quotati on o m itte d). S uch an i n t e r es t c an n otbe va gu e, tr an sit or y, or u n c er ta in ; i t m u st be affirm at iv e ly c re at ed , ex p licit, an d se c u re . B ure ll v. Ci ty of

M at t oon , 378 F.3d 64 2, 64 7 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); R eed v. Vi l l ageof

Sh ore wood, 704 F.2d 943 , 948 (7 t h Cir. 1983).24 N o. 10

- 3396 Inoth er w or d s, th er e m u s t b e a “le ga lly en for c ea b le ri ght. ” R ujaw itz v. M arti n , 561 F.3d 685 , 688 (7th C ir. 20 09 ). A n d to h av e s u c h a rig h t, th er e m u st be “e x p licit ly m andator y l anguage” l i nki ng “s peci fi ed substa nti ve p re d ica te s” to p re sc rib ed ou tc om es . M i l l e r v. Cry s ta l La ke P ark D is t. , 47 F. 3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1995). The U ni on a rgues that i ts m em bers h ave a r i ght t o th e rec allp roced ure s c ont em p lated in Section 5/34-18(31). The di st r i ct co ur t r ea d “5 /34

- 18 ( 31 ) as va g ue l y pr o vi di ng a p ro p e r t y in te re st in s om e s or t o f ret en tio n p ro c ed u re .” Chic ago Teac he rs U ni on , sup ra * 8. H ere, th e cou r t ’s opi ni on does notr esto n t h e sta tute al one, wh i ch i t no tes is “ n otcr ys ta l cle ar .” O p . at 1 2. R at h er , in tw o w ay s it fi nd s a r i ght t o re cal lpro cedures: fi rs t, i n the l i m i ts S ec ti o n 5 /34

- 18 ( 31 ) pl ac es on th e Bo ar d’ s di sc r et i o n, a nd se co nd, i n the r es i dual a nd un defi ne d i nt er es t th e m em b er s h av e in thei r j obs afterbeing l ai d off

. Op. at 16. Bu t nei thera “vague” statute al one, n ora “vague” s tatute plus som e r esi du al in ter esti n a per son’ s for m erj ob, gi ves the Union m em ber s a r i ght t o re cal l pro cedures. The Suprem e Cour t i s cl earo n that poi nt: “N orcan som eone be s afe ly deem ed ‘ enti tl ed’ to som ethi ng wh en the i denti ty ofthe al l ege d enti tl em ent i s v ague. ” G o nz a les , 545 U
. S. at76 3. Se cti on 5 /3 4- 18( 31) does notpro vi de the U ni on m em ber s w ith a n enti tl em ent. I t i s a n enabl i ng st atute , an autho ri zi ng st atute that g ive s the Boa rd the pow erto c re at e a rec all p ro c es s. It sa ys th at th e B oa rd “s h all ha ve po wer ” “[ t] o pr o m ulgat e r ul es ” f o r l ay o ff s an d re cal l s; i t then prov i des cr i teri a t o gui de the f or m ati on o fN o. 10

- 3396 25 these r ule s. 10 5 I LC S 5/34- 18(3 1). The sta tute does not spe c i fy what r ecal lpro cedures m ustbe m ade orthat th eya r e r equi r ed i n a l lc as es , j us t th atthe Bo ar d ha s th e pow ert o cre ate them

. In other w or ds, the Board m ay cr e a t e r e c a l l pr o c e du r e s b ut i s no t r e qu i r e d t o do so. That is th e n at u re of an en ab lin g s ta tu te
. See N orm an J
. Si ng er, 3 Suthe r l and St at utory C o nst r uc t i on , §§ 57 : 1 etal. ( 7 th e d. 20 08 ) ( di sc us sing e nabl i ngo r a utho r i zings ta tu te s an d thei r attrib u te s). A s the co urt note s, the Board has not c h os en to c re at e p ro c ed u re s fo r re c all d u rin g a nec on om ic layoff

. Sig n ifica n tly , th ou gh , th e B oa rd h as en ac te d rec all pr o c e du r e s whe n t e a c he r s a r e l a i d o ff b e c a us e o f a scho ol cl o sing . The se de ta i l ed pr o ce dures, i nc l udi ngt enmonths o fpa y a nd b en efi ts , a re di sc us se d i n fo o tn o te 2 o fthe cour t’ s o pini on. W hi l e the Boa rd has enacte d rec al lpro cedu re s when a scho olcl ose s, ther e m ay be g oo d rea son f orthe Board t o exer ci se i ts author i ty and choos e notto en ac t s u c h p ro c ed u r e s w h en an ec on om ic c ris is c om p els l ayo ff s. In an e conom i c cr i si s, the Board m ay w ant a s m uchfl ex ibi l i tya s po ss ibl e an d c ho o se t o a vo i d the cum ber som e t asko fdeter m i ni ng how to si ft thro ugh 2, 000 l ai d-o ffappli cants vying f orthe 200 j obs thatm ay open up du ring the scho ol yea r

— no t to ment i o n the gr i evance s that would natural l y fol l ow. I t m ay prefer to h av e e ve ry o n e ap p ly a n d letth e p rin c ip als m ak e t h eir ow n h iring de cisions. R egard less of t he reason s, th ere i s nothi ng i n the enabl i ng st atute thatspeci fi es that r e c a l lp r o c e du r e s a r e r e qu i r e d. No ts u r p r i s i n g l y, we h a v e p r e v i o u s l y d e a l twi th t he questi on o fwh etheran e nabl i ng st atute cr eat es a26 N o. 10

- 3396 pr o per tyr i g ht, no tabl y i n Hohm ei erv. Leyden Co m m unity H igh Sc hool s D i s t
. 21 2 , 954 F.2d 461 , 463-64 (7t h C ir. 1992). The r e, the s ch o o lb o ar d ha d a “ duty ” to “ ado pt an d en f o r ce a l lne ce ss ar y ru l es f o rthe mana g ementa nd gov er nm ent o fthe pu bl i c sc hool s o fthei r dist ri ct. ” Id. W e he l d th a ta l th o u g h th e B o a r d c o u l d c r e a t e a p r o per ty enti tl em ent under th e statute, i t had not

. Li ke Se cti o n 5 /34

- 18 ( 31 ) , the s ta tu te i n Hohm eier had cri ter i a for th e B o a r d t o u s e wh e n ma k i n g i t s r u l e s . I n c o n t r as t to t he c ou rt ’s h old in g t od ay , th er e w e fo u n d th at t h e c rit er ia “s ug g es ts tha t th e po l i cyi s int en ded to g ui de th e in te rn al m an ag em en t o f th e s c h oo l sys te m , rathe r than to createe nforce abler ights against the dist ri ct
. ” Id. a t4 6 5 ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )
. F u r th e r, i n H o hm eier, as her e, the sta tute gave the Board the di scr eti on t o deter m i ne wh at rul es to p ro m u lga te
. Id. And we h el d tha t sinc e t he r e was no bind ing obli gation th a t t he plaintiffs cou ld en force, there w as no pro pertyi nter estf orthe Du e Pr oce ss Clause to p ro te c t. Id. at46 4. L oo king at the t ext o fS ecti on 5 /3 4- 18( 31) , we shou ld arrive at th e s a m e conc lusion. Th e langu age at issue here is, as th e d ist ric t c ou rtp u t it, “va gu e” ; i t i s u n c er ta in and l acks bi nd i ng f or ce. U nd ete rr ed, the cour t no tes that w h ile th e s ta tu te is “n otcr ys ta l cle ar ,” t h e lim its it pla ces on t h e B oar d’s disc re ti on hel p cre ate an e xpectati on f orU ni on m em ber s in re cal l proce du re s. I n i ts w or ds: H er e, the l im it s o n the Bo ar d’ s di sc r et i o n fo und i n S ec ti o n 3 4- 18 ( 31 ) al o ngwi ththe t ea ch er s’ r i g ht to a “ perm anent” appoint m ent, gi ve r i se to a leg iti m a t e e x p ec ta tio n th at laid off te ac h er s w illN o. 10

- 3396 27

Further, the conte xtofthi s st atu te c u ts agains t any i nf erenc e 1 in f avor of tenure ri ghts. W e have dealt w ith the changes m a d e t o th is sta tu te i n s ev er a l ca se s o v er t h e y ea rs . Shegog v. Bd. of Edu c. , 1 9 4 F .3d 8 3 6 , 8 3 7 (7 th C i r . 1 9 9 9 ); Hea rnev. C hi cago Bd. of Edu c. , 18 5 F .3d 77 0 (7t h C ir . 19 9 9 ); Pit t m an v. C hicag o B d . o f (co n tin u ed ...) b e consi dered f orvac anci es f ora re aso nable peri od ofti m e. Op
. at1 6. Bu t the cr i ter i a l i ste d i n Se cti on 3 4- 18( 31) do not cre ate a r i ght, nordo they l i m i t the Boar d’s disc re ti on. W hen f or m ula ti ng the rul es, the Board is s up posed to “tak e into acco unt f acto rs i ncl ud i ng, but not [ ] lim i ted to, q u al i fi cati ons, cer ti fi cati ons, exper i ence, per f or m ance r a t i ng s o r e v a l ua t i o ns , a nd a n y o therfact ors re lati ng to an em ployee’s job pe rf

orm ance . ” Id. (e m p h as is a d d ed ). Th is l eg i sl at i ve c r i te r i a do es no t g i ve t enur ed te ac he r s a r i g ht to re cal lpro ced u re s. The sta tute does not provi de a guar antee thatafte r an y l ayo ffthe m ostqual i fi ed orm ost exp eri enced w i l lbe re cal l ed; al li t pr ovi des i s that if th e Bo ar d m ak es s uchr ec al lr ul es , i t wi l lt ak e i nt o a cc o unt f ac t o r s th a t i n c l u d e q u a l i fi c a t i o n s a n d e x p e r i e n c e a nd “an y othe r f a c t o rs rel ating to an em p loyee’s j ob p erform an ce.” 1 05 I LCS 5/34

- 18 ( 31 )
. W he n a s ta tu te l i m i ts the d e c i s i o n ma k e r ’ s d i s c r e t i o n s o th a ta p r e s c r ib e d o u t c o me wi l lf o l l o w fr o m ce r t a i n f a c t o r s , the n a r i g hti s c r eat e d. M iller, 47 F .3 d at86 7; Wallace, 940 F.2d at 247

. Th e m ere f ac t th at the Boa rd wil lco nsi der a non- excl usi ve l i st of th i ng s, pr i m ar i l y f o cus ed o n pe r f o r m an ce wi thno m enti on ofte nure, does notm ean that a cer tain outc om e w ill follow

. T h e U n io n m e m b er s c an ’t re as on ab ly 128 N o. 10

- 3396

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 Edu c. , 64 F. 3d 1 09 8 (7 th Ci r. 19 95 )
. And i n He a r ne, w e d iscu ssed ho w th e ch an g es aim ed on ly a t C hica g o P u b lic Sch oo ls

— w hich at the t im e th is sta tu te w as passe d “w as in the throes of an ed u cat i o n crisis”

— ero d ed the tea ch ers’ ten u re rig hts. He a r ne, 185 F. 3d at 772- 73. re ad the s tatute a nd i nfe r

— fro m t h e fact that the B oard w il l con side r qu ali fi cation s, certifi cati ons , and j ob p erform ance when m aking r ecal lpro cedures

— th at they have a s u b s t an tiv e e n tit lem en t t o re c all p ro c ed u re s. See G o nz a les , 5 45 U. S
. a t 76 5 ( “I fs he was g i ve n a s ta tu tory enti tl em ent, we w oul d expe c t t o see so m e ind i cati on o f that i n the sta tu te i tse l f

. ”)
. A nd “[ a] m i sund er sta nd i ng o f one’ s enti tl em ents, eve n i f re aso nabl e, does n ot enlar ge th ose enti tl em ents. ” Upa dh ya v. La ng enberg, 8 3 4 F
. 2 d 6 61, 665 (7th Cir. 1987). The r e ar e two o th er co m po ne nt s to th e co ur t’ s findi ng that the tea cher s have the ri ght to re cal l p ro cedures: fi r st, i ts a na l y si s o fthe I l l i no i s ca se l aw i nt er pr et i ngthe sta tute; a n d se cond, the decl ar ati on that t eacher s hav e a ri ght t o a per m an ent a pp oi ntm ent, with s om e r esi du al i nt er es t afte r te r m i na ti o n. Under th e fi r st, th e cou rt c o nclud es its exam ination of Lan d I a nd Land IIbynot i ng: N ei therthe 1995 am endm ents northe I l l i noi s ca ses con stru ing the m sugg es t that tenu red teach ers ar e notenti tl ed to an opportuni ty to show that they are qu ali fi ed f or vacan cies after an econ om ic l ayoff. Op
. at14 ( em phasi s a dd ed). That s tat em ent, i nd eed m uch of the c ourt ’ s r eas oni ng, i nver ts the pr operanal ysi s. I t i s no t th at th e l aw m us t no t ta k e away a r i g ht ; rather,N o. 10

- 3396 29 th e law m us t gu aran tee it. N or is it th e d ut y of th e B oard to show that the t eacher s do not have a par ti cul ar ri ght; r ather, i t i s incum bent on the U ni on t o show that i ts mem be r s ha ve on e. And t o ha ve s ucha r i g htthe m em ber s m ust hav e m uch m or e than an e xpectation of som ethi ng tha t the I l lin oi s ca ses have notta ken a w ay. T he U nion m em bers m us t sh ow th at “sta te law h a s affirm ati vel y c re ate d an expectat i on th at a par ti cul arem plo ym ent r el ati onshi p w i l lco nti nue u nl ess cer tain defined eve nts o ccur. ” B ure ll, 378 F. 3d at 647 ( qu otatio n om itte d ). That has not happ ened her e. Se cond, the cour t re p eatedlyinvoke s the co ncept o f ten ure and the ca se of M i m s v. Boar d of Educ at i on , 52 3 F. 2d 711, 71 5 ( 7th Ci r. 197 5), as sugg est i ng tha t the U ni on memb e r s h a v e a r e s i du a lr i g htt o r e c a l lp r o c e du r e s . Op
. at 9, 14

- 15. Thi s s ugges ti on i s m i sgui ded

. Fi rs t, rig h ts of th is sort d o not com e from fed eral ca s e l a w ; “the y are cr ea te d a nd the i r di m en si o ns a r e d efi ne d b y e xi st i ng r ul es o r unde rs ta ndi ng s th ats te m fr o m a n inde pen den t sour ce s uch as sta te l aw . ” G o nz a les , 545 U .S
. at 75 8; see also Goros v. County of Cook, 489 F.3d 857, 860 (7th C ir. 2007 ) ( “St ate l aw defines proper ty; federa l l aw d efi nes the p r o c e s s tha ti s du e . ” ( qu o t a t i o n o mi t t e d) )
. S e co nd , in M im s th e p lain tiffs w er e film s er vic er s w h o w er e la id o f fa f te r th e p ro gr am w as cu t, bu t b efo re th ey w er e la id off t h er e w er e s till so m e t em p or ar y jobs av aila b le in dism antlin g the pr ogr am , and the pla i nti ff s were not gi ven a chance to dem onst ra te they w er e ca pabl e o f d oin g t h e t em p o r a ry p os itio n s. Mi ms st ands f orthe unrem ar kabl e pr oposi ti on that due pro cess was not f ol low ed w hen the pla i nti ff s were l ai d offwitho ut a hear i ng.30 N o. 10

- 3396

This poi nti s c l ea r i n L an d I, w hich the court dis cuss es at 2 le ngth. There, the Il li nois Cou rtofAp peals w as looking at w h et her a tr aditi onal ri ght to conti nued em ploym ent exi st ed in the language of Sect ion 34- 18( 31) , and it held it w as not there: T he p lain tiffs ha v e failed to cite to a ny au tho rity

— and we ar e una bl e t o l oc at e any

— to supp ort thei r c lai m that b o th se c t i o n 3 4 -1 8 (3 1 ) o f th e C o d e a n d th e B o a r d ’s l ayo ffpol i c y c re at ed a pr ope rty i nt er es ti n the i r c ontin u ed em p lo y m en t. La nd v . Bd
. o

f Ed uc . o

f Ci ty o f C hi cago , 75 7 N .E.2d 912 , 92 5 (Ill. A p p . C t. 2 0 0 1 ), re v. i n par ton ot hergr ounds , 781 N
. E.2d 249 (co n tin u ed ...) Mi ms , 52 3 F
. 2d at 715. That ca se h as n o bear i ng o n w hat rights th e U nion m em bers h ave u nd er thi s sta tute to re cal lpro cedures. A nd thatcas e doe s no t s ugges t

— l et alo n e h old

— th a tu n d e r I l l i n o i s l a w a ftera p er so n is laid offhe ha s s om e r esi du alr i ghts i n hi s for m erj ob. H er e, the tea cher s a re al ll ai d off; i n the Board’ s words, they have been honor abl y di schar ged. The poi n t is they no l onge r have a j ob, and the proce ss they ar e o w ed und er the Due Pr oce ss Clause has been honor ed

— th e teach ers have not cl ai m ed theywere l ai d offwitho ut d ue pro cess . N o prop erty rights fol low ed the tea ch ers out the d oor. Mi ms do e s no t s ug g e s t tha t o nc e a n e mpl o y e e has been t e r mi na t e d s he r e t a i ns s o me r e s i du a lr i g ht s i n he r f or m er em p loym en t. N o case h olds that. To be clear, th e teach ers have a proper ty i nter esti n thei r j obs , but once they l ose t he i r j o b s , a n d th e p r o c e s s th a ta t t a c h e s t o i ti s h o no r e d, they have no m or e r i ghts that the Due Pr oce ss Clause prot ects
. 2N o. 10

- 3396 31

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 ( I l l

. Su p. Ct
. 20 02 )
. I n Land I, o nc e the em p loy ee w as term ina ted , tha t w as it: he h ad no m or e p ro p erty righ ts. T h e c ou rt ’s in st ru c tio n s o n r e m an d als o illu st ra te th is f a c t
. Und e r the c o ur t ’ s di r e c t i o n, the l a y o ff s a r e r e s c i nd e d, yetthe tea c h ers do not getbac k payo r getpl aced ba ck o n the pa y r o l l ; the y a r e no t co nt ractua le m pl o y ee s who enj o y s a l a r i e s a nd b e ne fi t s . Op
. a t 1 8

- 1 9
. Th e y ha ve an uncert ai n and und efi ned c on n ecti on t o the s chool s; they’ re j ust co nn ec ted with the s chooli n a s tat e o f l i m bo

— und efi ned by s tatute o r contr act, the product o fj udi ci alfi at
. S i nc e ne i th erS ec ti o n 3 4- 18 ( 31 ) n or the tea cher s’ co ntra ct c re ate s s uch a r esi du alr i ght which w oul d defi ne a m em ber ’ s s tatus, the cour t m ust o rder o ne . S o , o n r emand, the t ea ch er s no w have th e o ppo r tu
ni ty

— al o ngwi the ve r y o th era ppl i ca nt

— to sh o w th eir qual i fi ca ti o ns f o r ne w va ca nc i es . Ev ena fte r r es cindi ng the d isc h ar ges , that“o pp or tuni ty” i s no t a r i ght, bec ause the r e i s n o g ua r a nt e e tha tthe t e a c he r w i l l be r e hi r e d. T h ey j u st h av e a ch an c e, like e ve ry on e e lse

. See R eed, 70 4 F
. 2d at9 48 ( no ting“ pr o per tyi s whati s se cur ely a nd d u ra b ly y o u r s . . . , as d ist in c t fro m w h at you h old subj ect to so m any c ondit i ons as to m ake yo ur in te re st m eag er, tr ansi tory, o r uncert ai n”)
. N othi ng m or e. I n s um , ne i th erthe s ta tu te , no r a ny th i nge l se the cou rt c i t e s t o, giv es th e U n ion m em b er s a legit im at e c laim to recall p roced ure s in th e case of an econ om ic l ayoff. T h u s, I res p ec tfu lly su b m it th at th e c ou rt h as err ed in fi nd i ng such a r i ght.32 N o. 10

- 3396 II. M y s ec on d p oin t o f d isa gr ee m en t is m or e fu n d am en ta l: Eve n i fthe Uni o n m em bers ’ e xpe ct at i o ns fr o m a v ague st at u te co u ld cr ea te a r igh t t o re c all p ro c ed u re s, re c all proce du re s a re not s u bsta nti ve proper ty ri ghts. Fr om th e brief s and the d is t r ict court’s ord er, the U nion ’s d em a n d w as m inim al. Th e U nion w an ts to ens ure its m em b er s h av e a ch an c e t o s h ow p r i n c i p a l s t h eir qu ali f i ca ti o ns

— th ey wa n t s p e c i a l a c c e s s , o r i n t he wor ds o fthe di str i ctc o ur t, the y wanta “ f o o t i n the d oo r.” T h ey w an t a p ro c es s fo r h irin g t ea c h er s t h at w ill f avo r the l ai d-o ffte nured te acher s. H er e, the cour t fi nd s that the U ni on m em b er s h ave a rig h t t o re c all p ro c e d u re s, th e o n es th at th e B oa rd is em pow er ed to cr eat e un der S ecti on 5 /3 4- 18( 31) but has not yetcr eat ed. The co urt hol ds that these ye t- to-becre ate d rec all proce du re s co nsti tute a pro pertyr i ght that th e Due Pr o cess C la us e pr o te ct s. S o , t o e ns ur e th atthe U n ion m em b er s a re n otd ep riv ed oft h eir p ro p er ty (i. e . , th e recall p roced ure s) w ithou t d u e proc ess, the cou rt has o rder ed the Board t o cre ate r ecal lpro cedures ( w hi ch is, ag ain , t h e s o -c alle d p ro p er ty ). Th e log ic is circ u lar . A p ro cess ( here , the re cal l proce du re s) i s not an en d in i tse l f

. The Due Pro cess C l ause prot ects the proper ty r i g h t, n o t th e p r o c e s s . I tb e a r s n o t i n gth e S u p r e me Court’ s posi ti on o n the danger ofco nfl ating pro perty ri ghts w i th pro cedure: The poi nt i s s tr ai ghtf orw ar d : the Du e Pr oce ss Clause pro vi des thatcer tain substa nti ve ri ghts

— l i fe, l iber ty, and proper ty

— cann ot be depri vedN o. 10

- 3396 33

ex c e ptp ur s ua ntt o c o ns t i t ut i o na l l y a de qu a te p ro c ed u re s. The ca tego ries o f su bsta nc e a nd pro ced ure a re distin ct. W er e the ru le otherwise , the Clause w oul d be r educed to a m er e tau tol ogy . “Pr ope r ty” ca nno tb ede

f i ned b y theproc e dure s provi de d f or i t s depr i vat i on any m orethan ca n l i f eorl i b e r ty. C le veland B d. of E duc. v. Loud er m il l , 470 U
. S. 53 2, 54 1 ( 1985 ) ( em phasi s a dd ed). I l l ustr ating the Sup re m e C ourt ’ s point, the c ourt ’ s o pini on not es: “W i thout any proce du re s for rec all, th e ris k of d ep riv at ion t o th e t ea c h er s is sign ifica nt
. ” Op. a t 19
. Butwhati s t he de pr i va ti o n tha t th e tea c he r s wo ul d s uffe r ? I two ul d b e n o thingmo r e than thei r ri ght t o “r ecal lpro cedures. ” An d procedure s a re not p ro te c te d p ro p er ty righ ts : “P ro c es s is n otan en d in i ts el f

. I ts co ns ti tu ti o na l pur po se i s to pr o te ct a su bs ta nti ve i nter estto wh i ch the i nd i vi du alhas a l egi ti m ate cl ai m o fenti tl em ent. ” O l i m v. Waki ne kona , 46 1 U.S
. 23 8, 250 (1983 ). Byl o o k i nga tthe s t a t ut e thi s wa y, the c o ur tco nfl ate s the pr oper ty w i th the pro c es s. Ou r prece dent i s cl earo n this poi nt: “Pr om i ses o fpart i cul arpro cedures [ ] do not cre ate l egi ti m ate cl ai m s o fenti tl em ent. ” Wallace, 94 0 F. 2d at 248. A s tatute that m er el y pr ovi des pro cedures d o es n otinc lu d e a su b st an tiv e rig h t. Cain v. La rs on , 87 9 F. 2d 1424, 14 26 ( 7th Ci r. 1989 ) ( “I t i s bynow w el l

- est abl i shed that i n or de r to dem onst ra te a pro pertyi nter est wo r thyo fp r ot e c t i o n un de r the f o ur t e e nth a men dm en t’s d u e p r o c e s s c lau se , a p ar ty m ay n otsim p ly re l y upon the pro ceduralguar antees ofst ate l aw o r loc al or d in an c e.” ). A n d “a co n tr ac t th at c r e a te s m er ely34 N o. 10

- 3396

a r i g htt o pr o ce dur e does no t cr ea te a pr o per tyr i g ht w i thi n the m eani ng o fthe du e pr oce ss cl ause. ” Cam pbel l v. Ci ty of

Cham paign , 9 40 F. 2d 1111 , 11 13 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91) ( quotati on o m i tte d). H er e, the U ni on d oesn’tev en have an articulated proc ed ure

— i t has onlythe hope o fa proce du re . That i s no t the stuffo fpro pertyr i ghts. And ev enthe c o ur t’ s r emedy do es no t g i ve a s ubs ta ntiv e e n tit lem en t; on rem an d all t h e te ac h er s a re giv en is a pro cedure: the cour t r equi re s that the ir n am es be pla c ed o n a lis t. But havi ng y our nam e o n a l i st i s no t a p ro p er ty righ t. It is a form alit y. Olim , 4 61 U
. S. at25 0 ( no tinga pr o per tyr i g hti s no t “the r i g ht to de m an d ne ed less f orm ali ty”).

III
. T h e U n ion failed to b a r g ain ov er an d se c u re rec all p ro c e d u re s fo r its m em b er s w h en th er e is an ec on om ic l ayo ff

. Fa ced w i th thi s r eal i ty after the l ayo ff, i t has tr i ed to create a p rop erty right out of th e statu te th at em p ow ers th e B oard to m ake su ch proc ed u r e s . T he district cou rt an d th is c o ur t ha ve a cqui es ce d, fi ndi ngtha t th e Due Pr o ce ss Cl au se pr o te ct s whata m o unts t o a v ague a nd amor pho us ex p ec ta ti o n o fr ec al lpr o ce dur es , b utthe Due Pr o ce ss C lause pr o te ct s ne i th erv ague e xpe ct at i o ns norpro cedures. The subst ance an d f or m o fr ecal lpro cedu re s durin g an eco nom i c l ayo ffsho uld be r eso l ved at the b ar gaini ng tabl e; i t is not f orus, fi ftee n yea rs after the s tatu te was pa ss ed, t o r emedy tha t byc al l i ngthe ex pec ta ti on of“ r ec al lpr o ce dur es ” pr o per tyr i g ht s an d pla ci ng the m under the pro tect i on o fthe Du e Pr oce ssN o. 10

- 3396 35

I do agree w ith the court’ s opinion thatthe dist ri ctcourt 3 ov erstep p ed its b ou nd s by ord erin g the B oa r d to ne g otia te w ith the U nion over the s ub st ance and f orm ofrec all procedu r e s . To the e x t e nttha tthe Co ur t ’ s o pi ni onm od i fi es the dist ri ctcourt’ s order on thatpoint, I full y concur.

3- 29- 11 Clause

. A ccor dingl y, Ir espect fully d i sse nt with re spect to the fi ndi nga pr o per tyr i g ht, a nd c o nc urwi ththe j udg m en t m o di fy i ngthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s i nj unc ti o n. 3