The danger was never great, because a police officer in Chicago is entitled to a full year's sick-pay benefits for every two years that he is employed. Swick does not argue that he lost pen- sion or welfare benefits as a consequence of having been forced to take sick leave, or that he could have cashed out unused sick leave on retirement. The city argues that Swick was not suspended and al- ternatively that if he was he suffered no deprivation. This is plausible in light of the bracketing of suspension with removal and dis- charge, both of which actions entail a cessation of pay, and is supported by case authority. But even if this is wrong and Swick was suspended with- in the meaning of a statute that creates an entitlement not to be suspended for more than thirty days without cause, we do not think he has a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Some people love their work.
Perhaps not enough money to balance the diminution in psychic satisfaction if he loves police work as much as he claims. But the difference if any is too small, and too dif- ficult to measure, to support a federal suit. The maxim de minimis non curat lex retains force even in constitutional cases, even in civil rights cases. The injury that results when a person is temporarily deprived of his right to wear a uniform and a badge, to carry a gun, to arrest people, and to carry out other functions of a police officer or other public of- ficer is of this character. It is a real injury, but normally small and invariably difficult to monetize by the clumsy processes of litigation.