## 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 os. 09

- 3714, 09

- 3923 & 10

- 1060 C HR I S T I NE A . O PP, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. O FF I CE OF T HE S TATE ’ SA TT ORNEY OF C OO KC OUN TY, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees
. E D W ARD J. B ARR ETT, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. C OO KC OUN TYS TATE ’ SA TT ORNEY O FF I CE , et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees
. L EO NA RD C AHN MANN, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. R ICH ARD A . D EV I NE, in d ivid u ally an d in h is offi ci alcapaci ty as S TATE ’ SA TT ORNEY OF C OO KC OUN TY, I LLINO IS, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.2 N os. 09

- 3714, 09

- 3923 & 10

- 1060

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:08- cv-06120

—E lai ne E . Bu cklo, Judge
. No . 1:08- cv-06124

—H arry D . L einenw eber, Judge
. No . 1:08- cv-06207

—RubenC astil lo, Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 21, 2010

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 29, 2010

Befo re B AUER, S YKESa nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Ci r c u i tJ udg e . T he a ppel l an ts , f o r m erAss i st an t St ate ’ s A tto rney s t o the Coo k County St ate ’ s Attor ney, ea chb r o ug hta n a ct i o n c l ai m i ngunl aw fule m pl o y m en t te rm in at ion in v iola tio n of th e A g e D isc rim in at ion in Em pl o y m en t Act, 2 9 U. S
. C. § § 62 1- 63 4 (“A DEA ”)
. The d is tr i ctc o ur t g r an te d the de fen dan t- appe l l ee s’ mot i o ns to di smi ss r ul i ngtha t th e pl aint i ff

- appe l l an ts wer e ex c lu d ed from th e A D E A ’s c ov er ag e b ec au se th ey h eld p o l i c y ma k i n gp o s i t i o n s a s a ma t t e r o fl a w. We a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND A. C hr i s t i ne Opp A pp el l ant Opp beg an working f orthe Cook County State’s A ttorn ey’s O ffice as an A ssistan t State’s A ttorn ey in Ja n u ar y 1 99 7. O p p ’s fin al p os itio n d u rin g t h is em p loym en t w as as th e sup e r v is or ofthe P reli m inaryN os. 09

- 3714, 09

- 3923 & 10

- 1060 3 H ea r i ng s Cou r tr o o m a nd a s the “ fi r stc ha i r ” f o r the S i xth Di st r i ct o ve r fl o w fel o ny co ur tr o o m . Opp had c o nsisten tly received “q ua li fi ed ” or “highly qu ali fi ed ” p erform ance e val uati on r ati ngs. I n r e s po ns e t o b ud g e t r e du c t i o ns i n De c e mbe r 20 06, Cook County S tat e’s A tto rneyRi chard Devi ne se nt o ut a m em or andu m i nfo rm i ng Assi sta nt S tat e’ s Attor neys th at if p er so n n el cu ts b ec am e ne c es sa ry , th e cu t s w ou ld be b ase d on p er f or m ance eval uati ons. On Febr uary16 , 2007, Opp was i nfo rm ed that her em p loy m ent was being term inated
. Th e reason gi ven w as for “th e futu re n ee d s o f th e o ffice .” O p p ’s com p lai nt stated that s he w as fi fty-seven years o l d a tth e t i m e o fh e r t e r m i n a t i o n a n d th e o l d e s te mpl o y ee a ssi g ne d t o the S i xth Di st r i ct . S he was a l so the o nl y e m pl o y ee f r o m tha t Di st r i ctwho se e m pl o y m en t was t erm i na te d dur i ngF eb r ua r y 2 00 7. Opp’ s co m pl aint st at ed th ats he was r epl ac ed bya n indi vi duals ubst an ti al l y y o un g e r . Op p c l a i med tha ts he wa s t e r mi na t ed because o fherag e.
B. Ed w ard B arr ett A p p ell an t B arrett w as hired as an A ssistan t State’s Att orney i n J ul y 1 99 0. Ba r r et t’ s fi na l po si ti o n wi ththe S ta te ’ s Att o r ne y ’ s Offi ce was i n the Cri m i na l Pr o se cut i o ns Bu re au i n the Four th Di str i ct. Barr ettr eg u lar l y r ecei ved “ad eq ua te an d qu ali fi ed ” evalua tions of his j ob p erform ance.4 N os. 09

- 3714, 09

- 3923 & 10

- 1060 O n Fe b ru ar y 1 6, 20 07, B ar r e t t w as info rm ed th at h is em plo ym ent was be i ng te rm i nated. Li ke Op p, Barr ett w as tol d that hi s t er m i nati on was due to budget re du cti ons and fo r “the future needs o f the offi ce. ” Bar re tt cl ai m ed th athe was r epl ac ed bya ne w at to r ne y who w as younge r and that the S tat e’ s A tt orney hi re d up to s e v e n t y n e w a t t o r ne y s w h o w e r e a l l y o u n g e r th a n h i m, j us t m o nths a fte r hi s te r m i na ti o n. B arre ttwas f o r ty
- f o ur yea rs o l d at the ti m e o fhi s t er m i nati on a nd l i kewis e c o n t e n d e d th a t h i s d i s c h a r g e wa s d u e t o a g e d i s c r i mi na ti o n.
C. L e o na r d C a hnma nn A pp el l ant Cahnm an n beg an working f orthe Cook C ou nt y State’s A ttorn ey’s Office as an A ssistan t State’s Att o r ne y i n S ept embe r 1 99 8. On M ar ch2 , 2 00 7, Ca hnmann w as termi na te d f o r r ea so ns he was t o l d wer e “due to bu d ge ta ry co n st ra in ts .” C ah n m an n alleg ed th at in re al i ty he was te rm i nated be cause ofhi s a dvanced age and that the “ budg et ar y c onst ra i nts” he was inform ed of w ere only pret ex t. C ah nm a n n w as born on N ove m ber7, 19 46, m aking hi m si xty y ea rs ol d at the t i me he wa s t e r mi na t e d.

I I . DI S C US S I ON We r e v i e w deno vo the di st r i ctc o urt ’s d eci si o n t o g r an t a m ot ion to d ism iss p u rs u an t t o Fe d er al R u le of C ivil Pro cedure 12(b) ( 6) , acc epti ng t h e wel l

- ple aded al l ega ti ons i n the com pla i nt as tr ue and drawing al l r ea-N os. 09

- 3714, 09

- 3923 & 10

- 1060 5

so n ab le in fer en c es in fa vo r of t h e p lain tiff. Port e rv. D iBlasio , 9 3 F
. 3 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 5 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) ( ci ti ngTravel All O vert he World, Inc . v . K ingdom of Saudi Arabia , 73 F. 3d 1423 , 1429 (7th Cir. 1996)).

A . A pp oi ntee s o n the Pol i cymak i ng Leve l The a ppel l an ts b roug ht the i r a ct i o ns pur su an t to the A DE A and conte nd that they are “em plo yee s” cove re d by th e sc o pe o ftha t st atut e. The r el ev an t se ct i o n o fthe A DE A thatdefi nes the te rm “e m plo yee ” r eads: The t er m “e m plo yee ” m eans an i nd i vi du alem plo yed by any e m plo ye r except that the te rm “e m plo yee ” shal l noti ncl ud e a ny per son el ecte d to publi c o ffi ce i n any St at e o r pol i ti calsubdi vi si on o fany St ate by the qual i fi ed vot er s there of, or any per son chose n by such offi certo be on s uch officer’ s per sonalst aff, o r a n a p p o i n t e e o n th e p o l i c y ma k i n gl e v e l o r a n i mm edi at e adv i se r wi thr es pec t to the e xe r ci se o fthe const i tuti onalo r l ega l pow er s o fthe offi ce. 29 U
. S. C
. § 630(f) ( 2010 ). The A D E A thus e xcl ud es f ro m i ts cove ra ge f our types ofper sons: ( 1) el ecte d offi ci al s; ( 2) the perso nal st affo fan ele c te d offic ial; (3) a p p oin te es on th e p olic ym ak in g lev el; an d ( 4) “ ani m m edi at e advi sor wi thr es pec t to the ex er ci se o fthe c o ns ti tu ti o na l o r le g alpo wer s o fthe office. ” Th e ap p ell ees con ten d , and the d istric t cou rt he ld , t ha t the ap p ell an ts are situat ed w ithin th e third e x c e p t i o n a s a p p o i n t e e s o n th e p o l i c y ma k i n g l e v e l
. We agr ee that al l A ssi sta nt S tat e’s A tto rney s a re appoi ntees6 N os. 09

- 3714, 09

- 3923 & 10

- 1060

on th e p olic ym ak in g lev el a n d th er efo re are n otw ith in th e c o v e r a g e o fth e AD E A. The appell ants argue that A ssi sta nt S tat e’ s Attor neys are not ap p ointees on the p oli cym aking l evel a n d a re em p loye e s c overed by the scop e of th e A D E A
. Th is ci rc ui t ’ s c a s e l a w r ega r di ngthe i nt e r pr e t a t i o n o fa n a ppo i nt e e o n the p o l i c y mak i ngl e v e l i s wel l

- e s t a b l i s he d. A n i nd i vi du al i s consi dered an appoint ee on the p olic ym aking l eve l if “t h e pos i ti on hel d by the i nd i vi du al au th o r i ze s, e i th er di r ec tly o r i ndi r ec tly, mean i ng ful i np u t into gov er nm entaldeci si on- m aking o n i ssues w he r e the r e i s r o o m f o r pr i nc i pl e d di s a g r e e men to n goa l s o r th ei r i m ple m entat i on. ” A m erica no s v. C a rter, 74 F. 3d 138, 14 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( quoti ng He i de m an v. Wi rs i ng, 7 F. 3d 659, 663 (7th Cir. 1993)). W e der i ve d thi s t es t f r o m a pa i r o fc as es i n whi chthe Su p re m e C o u r t p er m itt ed em p loy ee d ism iss als of in d ivid ual s ho l ding pol i cym aking posi ti ons base d on pol i tica l affiliat ion
. Id. at 1 4 4; see genera llyB ran ti v. Fin k el , 445 U
. S. 507 (1980); Elrod v
. Bur ns , 42 7 U .S . 3 47 (1976). Draw i ng fro m thes e Fi rs t A m endm ent pol i ti calpatr onag e c a s e s , we a r t i c ul a t e d tha ti n ADEA c a s e s “ the t est f o r d eterm ini ngi fs o m eo ne i s an‘ empl o y ee ’
. . . i s es se nti al l y ind i stin gui shabl e fro m thatappli ed i n the pol i ti cal fi ring co ntext under the E lrod/Brantidoctr i ne. ” Am e r i ca nos , 74 F. 3d at 144 ( c i ti ng H e ckv. C ityof Freep o rt, 98 5 F
. 2d 305, 310 (7th C ir. 1993)). The appell ants conte nd thato u r u se ofthe pol i ti cal pat r o na g e an al y si s i s “ out dat ed an d m i spl ac ed, ” a co ntenti on with w hi ch w e s tr ongly d i sag re e. The appel l antsN os. 09

- 3714, 09

- 3923 & 10

- 1060 7

ur g e thi s c o ur tt o o v e r r ule Am e r i ca nos a nd f o l l o w the approach ofs o m e o th erc i r cui ts , a n inv i ta ti o n we dec l i ne to ac c ep t. W h er ea s t h is c ou rtrelie s o n a sin gle te st in deter m i ni ng wh etheran ind i vi du ali s a n appoi ntee on the pol i cym aking l eve l, the Se cond Cir cui t, f orex am p l e, appli es differ i ng appro aches i n Fir st A m endm ent c ase s an d in A D E A / T itle V II c as es . B utle r v. N ew York State D ep’ tof La w , 2 11 F
. 3d 73 9, 746-47 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 0) ( appl y i ng the Elrod / Brantido ct r i ne f o r a F i r stAm en dm en t anal ysi s a nd drawing on Ti tl e VI Ist atuto ryl angu age a n d C o n g r e s s i o n a l i n t e n tf o r a T i t l e V I Ia n a l y s i s )
. We choos e, h ow eve r, notto draw a di stincti on be tw een how ag gr i eve d i nd i vid ual s a re i nter prete d as pol i cyma k e r s u n d e r th e F i r s tAme n d me n ta n d un d e r t h e AD E A. Ap p e l l a n t s n e x t ar g u e th a tw e s h o u l d f o c u s o n a n e mpl o y ee ’ s ac tu alj o b func ti o ns a nd dut i es r athe r tha n the p ow ers i nhe r en t i n tha t g i ve n po si ti o n whe n mak i ng a pol i cym aking l eve l deter m i na tio n. The appel l ants furtherco ntend that each held a l ow-l eve l posi ti on a s an A ssi sta nt S tat e’ s Att orney, and theywere thus noto n a p olic ym ak in g lev el. T o t h e c on tr ar y, w e h eld in Tom cz ak v
. Ci ty of

Chi cago tha t a co urt is t o e xa m i ne “ th e po wer s i nh eren t i n a g i ve n o ffi ce , a s o ppo se d t o the functi ons perf or m ed by a par ti cul ar o c c up ant o fthat offi ce. . . . [ W ] e e m phasi ze[ ] the functi ons ofthe offi ce i nvol ved, notthe offi cehol der. ” To mc z a k v . Ci ty of Chic ago , 765 F.2d 633 , 640-41 (7th C ir. 1985). T h e ap p el l ants m ai ntai n that w e hav e in other case s re quir ed an exam i nati on of t he i nd i vi du al ’ s a ctualj ob dut i es . The a ppel l an ts i ncorr ec tly a ppl y thi s i nfr eque nt8 N os. 09

- 3714, 09

- 3923 & 10

- 1060

These ty p es ofcas es i nclude S od erb ec k v . B u rn ett C ou n ty, 752 1 F. 2 d 2 8 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 8 5 ) ( fi nd i ng tha ti ti s f orthe j ur y t o de c i de whethe r the em pl oye e i s a pol i c ym ake r bas ed on hi s ac t ual jo b d u ties on ly w he n th e ag g riev ed e m p loy ee’s ro le is “suffi cien tly uncertai n. ” In that c ase , the court le ft i t t o th e ju ry to d ete rm ine w hether a w om an w ho w as charact eri zed as a “c le ri cal w orker” occ up ie d a p oli cym aking posit ion. ) ; M atl o ckv. Bar ns , 93 2 F
. 2d 6 58 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91 ) ( wher e the c ourtc oul d notgr ant sum m a ry j ud gm ent because there w as nothing i n the rec ord des crib ing t he pl ai nt i ff’ s dut i es as a “l eg al i nve s t i gat or ” for th e L a w D ep a rt m en t fo r t h e c ity o f G a ry ). r equi r ementt o the i r o wn ca se. T hey c o r r ec tly po i nto ut th ati n c er ta i n v er y l i m i te d s i tu at i o ns , a n indi vi du al’s actualj ob du tie s are m or e r el evantto the pol i cym ake r anal ysi s. N onethel ess , we cl ar i fi ed the appli cati on o f

1 th i s st an dar d i n o ura na l y si s i n Vargas - Har r i s on v . Rac i ne U nifi ed School D is tr ict
. I n that case , we m ade cl earthat in m an y c a ses th e d ut ies and resp ons ibi li ties ofa parti cul arposi ti on a re cl ear l y o utl i n ed byl aw ; i n thes e case s, the cour t m ay m ake the deter m i nati on, as a m att ero fl aw , thata cer tai n posi ti on in vo l ves pol i cym ak in g. Va rgas- Harrison v. R acine U nifi ed Sch. D ist. , 27 2 F
. 3d 96 4, 9 72 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( fi ndi ngtha t th e pl ainti ff, an e l em entar y s choolpri nci pal, was a poli cym ake r as a matt ero fl aw b ec au se s ch o o l d ist r i ctr egul at i o ns cl ear l y pr ovi ded an undis pu ted desc ripti on o fher dutie s an d po wer s)
. W e th us he l d tha t det er m i ni ngthe po wer s i nhe r en t i n a g i ve n off ice may b e do ne wi th o ut th e aid of a fin d er of fac t “w h en th e d u tie s an d r es p on sibi l i ti es of a part i cul arposi ti on a re cl ear l y defi ned byN os. 09

- 3714, 09

- 3923 & 10

- 1060 9 l aw and re gul ati ons. ” Id. ( ci ti ng P leva v. No rquist, 195 F
. 3d 905, 912 (7th C ir. 1999)). The du ti es and pow er s inherentto S tat e’ s Attor neys an d Ass i st an t S ta te ’ s Att o r ne y s w ith r eg ar d t o s et ting p o l i c y a r e we l l

- d e fi n e d b y I l l i n o i s s t a t u t es and o u r o wn c a s e la w . See 55 I LC S 5/3- 9005
. The S tat e’ s Attor ney “ has th e br o ad di sc r et i o n t o s etwhateve r po l i ci es he o r s he b elie ve s n ec es sa r y t o p ro te c t t h e in te re st s o f .
. . so c iet y.” Li vas v. Pe t ka , 71 1 F
. 2d 798, 800 (7 th C ir. 19 83)
. I n or der to car ryo ut the offi ce’ s duti es, as wellas s et a nd i m ple

m ent pol icy, the St ate ’ s Attor ney i s e m pow er ed to na m e as si st an ts who “whe n s o a ppo i nt ed sh al l t ak e th e oath ofoffi ce in the sam e m anner as St ate ’ s Attor neys an d shall be un d er the su p ervisio n o f th e State’s A ttorne y.” 55 ILC S 5/4-2003 (2010). Th erefore, w ith regard to A ssi sta nt S tate’s A tto rney s, we have he l d that “[u]n d er I ll inois l aw A s sistan t State’s A ttorn eys are su rrog ates for the State ’s A ttorn ey. A ssistan t State’s Att o r ne ys ‘pos se ss the po weri n the s ame manne r a nd to the sam e e ffect as the S tat e’ s Attor ney. ’ ” M c G rath v. G il li s , 4 4 F.3 d 5 67, 5 71 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) ( quo ting Peop l ev. Tobi as , 12 5 I l l
. A pp . 3 d 2 34 , 242, 80 I l l
. Dec. 49 6, 503, 46 5 N
. E.2 d 608 , 615 ( 1984 ) )
. M or eov er, we have d et er m in ed th at “a n A ss ist an t S t a t e ’s A tt or n ey m ay , in ca r r y i ngo uthi s o r her d ut i es , make s o m e dec i si o ns that w i l l actual l y c re ate pol i cy. ” Li vas , 71 1 F
. 2d at 801. The appell ants conte nd thatA ssistant St ate ’ s Attor neys m erely im p lem en t p oli cy action s on beha lf of th e St a te’s A tto rn ey. W e di sag re e. A n A ssi sta nt S tat e’ s Attor ney c ar rie s o u t p olic y on be h alf ofth e g ov er n m en t, an d in10 N os. 09

- 3714, 09

- 3923 & 10

- 1060 doi ng so has “m eani ngful i npu t into gov er nm en tal d ec isio n -m ak in g on iss u es w h er e th er e is roo m for p rin c iple d disa gr eem ent o n go al s or thei r i m ple m entat i on. ” F or ex ampl e, a n Ass i st an t S ta te ’ s Att orney’ s dec i si o ns a nd ac ti o ns i n the c o ur tr o o m a r e bi nd ing o n the g o ve r nm en t. T he State’s A ttorn ey gran ts an A ssistan t State’s At t o r ne y the a utho r i t y t o c o nd uc t a ca s e i n c o ur t, a nd , f r o m tha t po i nt, the Assist an t S ta te ’ s Att o r ne y a ct s as the State’s A ttorn ey i n all resp ects . Th e A ssistan t State’s A tto rneym ay choos e t o pros ecute ordi sm i ss a ca se, wi th o r wi tho utthe St a t e ’ s At t o r ne y ’ s i np uta nd g ui dance. Thi s a l one ra i ses A ssi sta nt S tat e’s A ttorne ys to the l eve l o fpol i cym ake rs . B ecau se th e ap p ell an ts’ p ositi ons as A ssistan t State’s A tto rney s g ave them i nherentpol i cym aking autho ri ty, any a rgum ents about thei r actuald u tie s are i rr el evant, a nd we n e e d n o tco nd uct a f a c t ua l a na l y s i s o fthe a ppel l ants’ actual j ob du ti es. Because the a pp el l ants’ r ol es as A ssi sta nt S tat e’ s A ttorne ys w er e cl ear l y defi ned by sta tute, we fi nd t h at the di str i ct c ourt ’ s dete rm i nati on a s a ma t t e r o fl a w o fthe p o l i c y m aki ng st a t us o fthe a pp ell an ts’ positions w as p rop er.
B. A p p ointm en t The seco nd l i ne o fthe appell ants’ ar gum ent i nvol ves th eir appoint m en t as Ass i st an t S ta te ’ s Att o r ne y s. The a pp e l l a nt s ar gue o n a pp e a l tha tthe y we r e n o ta ppo i nt ed bythe S ta te ’ s Att orney a nd thus c anno t be c o nsi der ed “a pp ointee s” o n the po l i cy m ak i ngl ev el
. The appell an ts m ai ntai n that they w er e no t “ nam ed” or “appoi nted” bythe St ate ’ s At to rn ey , as theywere hi re dN os. 09

- 3714, 09

- 3923 & 10

- 1060 11 bythe S ta te ’ s Att o r ne y’s Offi ce i ns te ad, a nd i n a ny case , theywere hi re d as Assi sta nt S tat e’ s Attor neys bef or e Ri chard Devi ne w as el ecte d as the CookCounty St ate ’ s Attor ney. The a ppel l an ts ’ ar g um en t th atthe y wer e hi r ed bythe St a t e ’ s At t o r ne y ’ s Offi c e a nd n o tb y the S t a t e ’ s At t o rney fai ls on allaccou nt s. A ssistan t State’ s A ttorn eys are ap p oin te d by th e St at e’s A t to rn ey as a m at te r of Illino is l aw . I l l i noi s l aw st ate s that “ A ss ist an t S tat e’ s Attor neys ar e to be nam ed by the Stat e’ s A tto rneyo fthe county. ” 5 5 I LC S 5/4- 2003 ( 2010 )
. Thi s s tatutor y l an gu age gi ves the S tat e’ s At to rney excl usi ve author i ty to appointA ssi stant St ate ’ s Attor neys. Thi s s ta tu te m ake s pl ai n that A ssi sta nt S tat e’ s Attor neys ar e a pp oi ntees . The appell ants furtheras ser t that they were hi re d as Assi st an t S ta te ’ s Att o r ne y s be f o r e Ri ch ar d D ev i ne

— th e St ate ’ s Attor ney under w hom ea ch w as ter m i nated

— w as elected , and they w ere t hu s not “c hos en by” R ichard Devi ne. Thi s a rgum ent has no m er i t. Each curr ent Assi st a n tS t a t e ’ s At t o r n e y i s r e - a p p o i n t e d u p o n th e s we ar i ng in o fe ac h n ew S ta te ’ s Att o r ne y . The a ppel l an ts were th us a ppo i nt ed byRi ch ar d De vine upo n h i s swe ar i ngi n.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re aso ns se t fo rt h abo ve, the appell ants ar e no t cove re d by the sc ope o fthe A DE A a s a m att ero fl aw and the app ella n ts ’ cl ai m s f ai l ed to st ate a cl ai m f or re l i ef
. W e A FFIRM .
12- 29- 10