Opinion ID: 2997134
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pretext and Related Issues

Text: Gusewelle supports his pretextual argument by asserting that his dual residency was no secret and that “everybody knew about it.” This argument really is that the City, by its knowledge, ratified the arrangement. However, there is no evidence that any specific individual knew about the Plaintiff’s living arrangements. The one comment which would seem to support Gusewelle’s position comes from the minutes of a closed City Council meeting. The minutes report that Wood River’s mayor expressed some concern that former City Managers and Parks and Recreation Directors No. 03-2100 7 knew of Gusewelle’s living arrangements and did nothing about it. No one at the meeting contradicted what the mayor had said. While Gusewelle calls these facts a smoking gun, we are not so persuaded. There is no evidence that any of the current City Managers or City Council members had prior knowledge of Gusewelle’s residency arrangements. In fact, there is no evidence in the record that shows that any specific individual, much less a decision-maker, knew of Gusewelle’s living arrangements until Stassi told Christie of the “rumor” that Gusewelle did not live in the city of Wood River. Therefore, without demonstrable knowledge of the arrangement the argument fails to show ratification. See Dempsey-Tegeler & Co. v. Irwin, 415 F.2d 1348, 1351 (7th Cir. 1969) (stating that knowledge of material facts is sufficient to ratify).
Gusewelle argues that the statement attributed to Stassi also supports his discrimination claim. Stassi said to keep the Plaintiff on his feet so that he would retire. Gusewelle learned of Stassi’s statement secondhand. But Stassi was not a decision-maker, so whether he made the statement or not is irrelevant. Koski, 307 F.3d at 677; Cerutti, 349 F.3d at 1066. There is no dispute that Christie and the City Council were the parties responsible for terminating the Plaintiff. Indeed, Christie stated that he was responsible for hiring and firing all employees not covered by the policeand-fire commission. The same analysis applies to Stassi’s false comment that Gusewelle planned to retire at age sixty-five. 3. Christie’s Credibility and Police Investigation Gusewelle claims that Christie’s credibility has been “fatally undermined by his testimony regarding the ‘investigation’ into the residency question.” When asked why 8 No. 03-2100 he requested the police to investigate, as opposed to just questioning Gusewelle about his living arrangements, Christie responded that he “did not want to make—cause Mr. Gusewelle embarrassment.” Gusewelle claims that this explanation is “so preposterous and unbelievable that it calls into question the integrity of all of Mr. Christie’s testimony.” We disagree. By itself, the reason may seem somewhat thin, however that was not all that Christie said. He added, “[i]f indeed this was simply a scurrilous rumor that had no basis, there was no need of upsetting Mr. Gusewelle by asking him that question.” Furthermore, earlier in the deposition Christie testified, “in order to be completely unbiased and fair, I thought that an investigation was warranted by a third party.” Gusewelle also attacks Christie’s stated reason for initiating a police investigation, as opposed to simply asking Gusewelle about his residency, by noting that the investigation was “intrusive.” Such an argument assumes that this court concerns itself with the propriety of business decisions. “We do not sit as a superpersonnel department that reexamines an entity’s business decision and reviews the propriety of the decision. Our only concern is whether the legitimate reason provided by the employer is in fact the true one.” Stewart v. Henderson, 207 F.3d 374, 378 (7th Cir. 2000) (citation removed). And as we have already found, Christie’s reasons for having the police investigate the matter seem quite reasonable and believable. The stated reasons do not support a finding of pretext. 4. Grace Period Gusewelle finds pretext for discrimination in the City’s refusal to allow him a grace period to comply with the residency requirement. The problem with this argument is that Wood River Personnel Rule 12.3 says that one who No. 03-2100 9 violates the regulation “shall be terminated.” Abiding by the terms of the ordinance is not evidence of pretext. (Although, he was given a one-year grace period at the time he was hired. He failed to take advantage of it.) 5. Rehiring As to why the City did not consider rehiring Gusewelle after he promised to comply with the residency requirements, Christie testified, “[w]e didn’t think that was proper. . . . Because he had been terminated for violation of the—of the code. How would I have any feeling that that code would not be violated again?” This is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason even assuming that Gusewelle had a right to be rehired. 6. Qualifications Gusewelle’s arguments based on his excellent qualifications to perform his job are interesting but not significant. The City does not dispute that Gusewelle was an outstanding employee and they did not fire him because of poor performance. The City fired him for failing to comply with the residency requirements and his qualifications have no bearing on the issue of residency. 7. City’s Reasonable Belief that Plaintiff Violated Residency Requirement Plaintiff’s brief argues that he was not in violation of the residency requirement. The question, of course, is whether the decision-maker honestly believed he was in violation of the requirement. Abioye v. Sundstrand Corp., 164 F.3d 364, 368-69 (7th Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, the evidence of this case and the law cited in the parties’ briefs indicates that Gusewelle was in violation of the residency requirement. 10 No. 03-2100 According to City of Wood River Personnel Rules 12.3, “[a]ll employees must reside within the City limits within twelve (12) months after employment. If a City employee chooses to move outside of the city limits, that employee shall be terminated.” The Personnel Rules also define “resident” as “[a] person whose primary residence lies within the corporate limits of the City of Wood River.” Even though it is not found in the text of Rule 12.3, it appears that the City read the definition of “resident” into the meaning of “reside” as found in Rule 12.3. Such a reading is reasonable when viewed in light of the commonly accepted definition of “reside.” Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, defines reside as “to dwell permanently or continuously: occupy a place as one’s legal domicile.” Therefore, the City’s belief that their Rules required Gusewelle to maintain his primary residence in Wood River is sound. Gusewelle attempts to support his claim that his primary residence was in Wood River, not in Edwardsville, by citing to Illinois case law. He quotes Figiano v. Police Board: “[a] person’s ‘residence’ is the place where a person lives and has his true, permanent home, to which, whenever he is absent, he has an intention of returning.” 456 N.E.2d 27, 29 (Ill. 1983). Gusewelle points out that he paid taxes, registered his car and driver’s license, and voted using his Wood River address. This, he says, is enough to show his intent to ‘reside’ in Wood River. We disagree, but more to the point, the City disagreed. Gusewelle lived in Wood River a mere two nights a week, and, as the City states, “[f]ive nights a week is greater than two.” What tips the balance in favor of Gusewelle being a resident of Edwardsville, as opposed to Wood River, is the fact that his wife continuously resided in Edwardsville. There is nothing in the record which would indicate that the Gusewelles’ marriage was deteriorating. We find it extremely hard to believe that Plaintiff, when away on vacation, intends to return to Wood River as opposed to the marital home in Edwardsville. Based on all No. 03-2100 11 of this evidence and a reasonable reading of the Rules, there is nothing to indicate that the City did not, in fact, believe that Gusewelle was in violation of the residency rule. 8. Plaintiff’s Honesty One final issue on the question of pretext should be addressed. Although neither party addresses the question of Gusewelle’s honesty as a separate issue, it finds its way into many of the arguments—Gusewelle says he was honest throughout his career and the City says he lied throughout his career. Both positions have some merit. The facts show that Gusewelle never affirmatively lied. However, his statements about residency were misleading. He reported that he had moved to Wood River and gave an address. What he did not say was that he had moved to Wood River for a mere two nights a week. There is a strong suggestion that the reason Gusewelle never explained in full his residency was that he thought he was getting away with something. Regardless of whether he actually was dishonest, the City was entitled to believe that his credibility was limited. Taken individually or in the aggregate, the arguments that Gusewelle makes do not support a finding of pretext. He has not shown that the City’s proffered reasons for the termination were factually baseless, insufficient to motivate the discharge, or not the actual motivation for the discharge. C. Property Interest in Employment and Due Process The district court’s March 24, 2004 Memorandum & Order lays out a detailed and thoughtful analysis on the issue of whether Gusewelle had a protectable property interest in his job—he did not. The analysis noted that there was no employment contract—neither an express contract nor implied contract rights created through the 12 No. 03-2100 Personnel Rules Handbook. Plaintiff does not spend any time in his brief specifically refuting the judge’s findings, merely arguing that the lower court overlooked Christie’s testimony that all Wood River employees are given due process prior to termination. We find no error in the district court’s holding. However, in an abundance of caution, we will consider the issue addressed to this court. As stated above, the district court found Gusewelle to be an at-will employee. Plaintiff disputes this in this court by citing to Christie’s deposition testimony where, so Gusewelle says, Christie said that all employees are entitled to due process. Gusewelle’s undeveloped argument asserts that because employees are “entitled” to due process they must have a property interest in their employment. This is a mischaracterization of the record. Contrary to Gusewelle’s assertion, Christie never said that all employees were “entitled” to due process prior to termination—those were the words of Gusewelle’s attorney. What Christie said was that the City attorneys “on other issues have always recommended to me, as well as to the council, that due process should be handled and afforded to everybody.” (Emphasis added.) There is no use of words like “required” or “must.” Due process was afforded to Gusewelle in an effort to be fair and cautious—not due to some entitlement to that process. The other problem with Plaintiff’s argument is the fact that he did receive an administrative hearing prior to being terminated. Even assuming a property interest in his job, he received some process. He cites no law and makes no argument that he was entitled to more process than he received. Without argument otherwise, we decline to hold that the district court’s finding was error. No. 03-2100 13 D. Residency Requirement’s Rational Relationship to a Legitimate Governmental Interest. Gusewelle’s final argument is that there is no rational relationship between the residency requirement and a legitimate governmental interest. Although undeveloped, the argument is based on the fact that no City Council member or City Manager could articulate a reason for having a residency requirement for a golf course mechanic. Put that way, it is hard to justify. But, “the burden is upon the challenging party to negative ‘any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification.’ ” Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 367 (2001) (emphasis added) (quoting Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320 (1993)). There are numerous conceivable reasons for retaining a residency requirement for government employees. One, discussed by Wood River’s mayor, is that resident employees are available for work emergencies on short notice. Granted, there are probably not too many middle-of-the-night emergencies where a golf course mechanic would be needed, but it is not outside the realm of possibility. Furthermore, this court and others have repeatedly found that residency requirements are rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. E.g., McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Serv. Comm’n, 424 U.S. 645 (1976); Andre v. Bd. of Trustees, 561 F.2d 48, 50 (7th Cir. 1977); Wardwell v. Board of Education, 529 F.2d 625, 628 (6th Cir. 1976); Fedanzo v. City of Chicago, 775 N.E.2d 26 (Ill. App. 2002).