Opinion ID: 1427488
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Take Back Letter and Due Process Claims

Text: A post-argument letter sent to the court by Appellant's counsel presents one last puzzling thing that should be addressed. As previously noted, in her second amended complaint, Argyropoulos asserted, among other things, claims for alleged due process violations in connection with her termination, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment against her on these claims (Count III against the City and Count IV against Duty, Botterbush, and Sullivan). And, of course, an appeal was taken from the adverse judgment. However, a careful examination of the Appellant's briefs on appeal suggests that the due process ruling was not one of the issues being appealed. For example, the Appellant's statement of the issues in her opening brief framed only two issues: I. Whether Plaintiff raised a reasonable inference that her written complaint about sexual harassment, among other things, moved the defendants to mistreat her. II. Whether, in the interests of justice, the district court should have granted Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment, Motion for Stay and Limited Discovery, Motion to Supplement, and Motions to Compel Discovery and Disclosures. The balance of the brief is devoted to arguing the retaliation claim, save for what is essentially a passing reference to general procedural due process concepts near the end of the brief. [8] Despite a short section in the Appellees' response brief defending the trial judge's ruling on the due process claims, the Appellant's reply brief made no mention whatsoever of a due process theory. So, leading up to the oral argument in this case, Argyropoulos had devoted scant attention to the concept of procedural due process. In the same vein, Argyropoulos's attempt to establish Monell liability for the City consisted only of conclusory statements, devoid of any citation to substantiating evidence in the record. Such skeletal treatment of a claim does not facilitate well-informed judicial decision-making; indeed, it essentially invites the court to disregard the claim at issue. See Kramer v. Banc of Am. Secs., LLC, 355 F.3d 961, 964 n. 1 (7th Cir.2004) (undeveloped argument constitutes waiver); Smith, 388 F.3d at 569. One is left to wonder whether Argyropoulos chose to accept the trial court's decision on the due process claim as she did with respect to the Title VII harassment and Illinois-law intentional infliction of emotional distress theories. As the above discussion suggests, the inadequate development of Argyroupolos's due process claim points in the direction of waiver. See Hook, 471 F.3d at 775 ([P]erfunctory and undeveloped arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived (even where those arguments raise constitutional issues). (citation omitted)). And at oral argument, Appellant's counsel seemingly delivered the coupe de grace to this claim by announcing his intention to waive it altogether; indeed, he indicated that the due process argument should receive consideration only insomuch as it was relevant to the retaliation claim. [9] Based on this assurance, the oral argument focused on the retaliation claim, with no meaningful discussion of a due process theory. However, the day after oral argument, Appellant's counsel sent a letter to the court indicating his intention to reassert all arguments made in Appellant's Brief and to retract any waiver [he] made ... at oral argument. Although the letter did not cite any authority for such a retraction, the Seventh Circuit Practitioner's Handbook provides that, where counsel reconsiders a position taken or a concession offered at oral argument, he may send a letter to the panel `taking back' the concession or restating [his] position on a particular point. Practitioner's Handbook for Appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 97 (2003), available at http://www. ca7.uscourts.gov/Rules/handbook.pdf. While this provision may be of use to some litigants, it is of no help to Argyropoulos. First, the letter does not even hint at what concession or position is being retracted. Next, it is devoid of any explanation for the change of any position taken at argument. And of course, such a shifting position deprived this court of a clear explanation, either in her brief or at oral argument, of the Appellant's position on due process. Most importantly, if the post-argument letter was an attempt to reassert due process claims, it amounts to far more than the mere taking back of a concession imprudently offered at oral argument; because the due process claims were never adequately developed, either here or below, it is an attempt to revive claims that simply never were. Cf. United States v. Ross, 412 F.3d 771, 775 (7th Cir.2005) (allowing retraction of concession where winning argument was adequately developed in opening brief but expressly abandoned in reply brief); Lear v. Cowan, 220 F.3d 825, 828-29 (7th Cir.2000) (argument raised for the first time at oral argument, by the judges no less, was thoroughly waived). A take-back letter following oral argument in this case simply cannot resuscitate claims that were never alive in the first place. This court should not have to divine arguments from such a scant record, nor should it have to consider claims which are specifically disavowed when an opportunity to argue them is presented. A quick look at the merits suggests that Argyropoulos gave up very little, if anything by waiving her wispy due process claims. She completely failed at the trial court to establish a basis for liability as to defendants Botterbush and the City. (Duty wasn't even named in the due process counts of the second amended complaint.) Summary judgment was properly granted for Botterbush, because Argyropoulos failed to identify any evidence in the record showing that he played a role in her termination. And she also failed to support her claim for municipal liability. She asserted, in conclusory fashion, that she was deprived of due process pursuant to municipal policy because Chief Sullivan was the relevant policymaker, but she failed to identify any evidence in the record substantiating this assertion. The authority, under state or local law, to set policy  i.e., to adopt rules for the conduct of government  distinguishes a final policymaker, whose decisions may subject a municipality to § 1983 liability, from an official who merely possesses authority to implement pre-existing rules. Killinger v. Johnson, 389 F.3d 765, 771-72 (7th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also McGreal v. Ostrov, 368 F.3d 657, 685-86 (7th Cir.2004). The chief of a police department, even when making internal personnel decisions, does not always possess the requisite policymaking authority. See Auriemma v. Rice, 957 F.2d 397, 399 (7th Cir.1992) (police superintendent did not act as final policymaker in making allegedly racially and politically discriminatory personnel decisions where municipal ordinances unequivocally banned racial and political discrimination); see also Abbott v. Vill. of Winthrop Harbor, 205 F.3d 976, 982 (7th Cir.2000). Thus, Argyropoulos needed to establish, by reference to applicable state or local law, that Sullivan was the final policymaker with respect to police department employment decisions; she failed to provide evidence to this effect, and it is not the court's task to do so on her behalf. See Estate of Moreland v. Dieter, 395 F.3d 747, 759 (7th Cir.2005) (We will not scour a record to locate evidence supporting a party's legal argument.). The termination of the due process claim against Sullivan in his individual capacity is a closer call. The district court reasoned that the police department needed to act quickly to remove Argyropoulos from active duty and found that, under the circumstances, her post-termination opportunities to challenge her dismissal were adequate. The district court relied on Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924, 117 S.Ct. 1807, 138 L.Ed.2d 120 (1997), in which the Court stated, [W]here a State must act quickly, or where it would be impractical to provide predeprivation process, postdeprivation process satisfies the requirements of the Due Process Clause. Id. at 930, 117 S.Ct. 1807 (citing collected cases). However, that conclusion does not displace the near-categorical guarantee of at least some pre-termination process to tenured public employees as discussed in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985). But Argyropoulos never cited or discussed either Gilbert or Loudermill, and because of her waiver, we need not explore this issue further. [10] To recap, Argyropoulos waived her § 1983 claim by not adequately developing her denial-of-due-process argument. Moreover, even if she had adequately developed this argument in her brief, this claim was unequivocally waived at argument, and was not revived by the post-argument letter.