Opinion ID: 152040
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: A Genuine Issue of Material Fact Exists as to Whether the School's Investigation Was Biased and Deprived Purvis of Due Process

Text: Purvis contends that her due-process rights were violated by Vicini's pressuring M.R. into changing his story and admitting the existence of a sexual relationship. Purvis submits that Vicini exerted such pressure because he held a fundamental animus against her, due to her having previously reported him for sexual harassment. She argues that his bias against her resulted in a constitutional deprivation. The first question is whether the record, viewed in the light most favorable to Purvis, reveals a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Vicini was biased against her. We have no difficulty finding that it does. It is axiomatic that an individual accused of sexual harassment by a fellow teacher, and who was informed of the identity of the accuser, might harbor some resentment against that accuser. Although Vicini denies holding a grudge against Purvis, this raises a question of fact for the jury. Thus, given the summary-judgment posture, we find that the evidence supports a finding that Vicini was biased against Purvis. In light of this determination, it is troubling indeed that the principal, Lunn, would place Vicini in a position in which he exercised at least some influence over the course of the school investigation. Again viewing the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the evidence amply supports a jury finding that Vicini exerted great pressure over M.R. to admit the existence of a sexual relationship with Purvis. It is a legitimate inference that Vicini may have been spurred to exercise this pressure in some part by his dislike of Purvis. We have previously recognized that fundamentally biased process is not due process. Levenstein v. Salafsky, 164 F.3d 345, 352 (7th Cir.1998) (emphasis original). In light of our preceding determination as to Vicini's potential bias and influence over the school investigation, it is fair at the summary-judgment juncture to characterize the school's investigation of Purvis as fundamentally biased. However, a lack of process does not necessarily translate into a constitutional violation; rather, it must be tied to a protected interest. It is well established, however, that a person has a liberty interest to pursue employment in her chosen field and that this interest is violated when a state actor casts doubt on that individual's good name or reputation such that it becomes virtually impossible for her to find new employment in that field. See Townsend v. Vallas, 256 F.3d 661, 669-70 (7th Cir.2001); Strasburger v. Board of Education, 143 F.3d 351, 356 (7th Cir. 1998). It is also the case that a tenured employee has a property interest in his job. Levenstein, 164 F.3d at 351. Oest, Lunn and Vicini go to some length to emphasize that they did not owe Purvis due process before alerting the DCFS of her suspected child abuse. They observe that such reporting does not deprive the suspected abuser of an interest in pursuing her chosen profession. Instead, they point out, it is the DCFS's decision to indicate a person as a sexual abuser that effects a deprivation. This is a potentially important point, and we therefore address it in some detail. First, and as an observational matter, Oest did not in fact report Purvis to the DCFS; instead, he informed the police department, which in turn notified the DCFS. If we nevertheless treated his reporting Purvis to the police as equivalent to notifying the DCFS, we agree that such action would not in itself amount to a constitutional deprivation. This holds true despite the current wording of Illinois's Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act (ANCRA), which provides that: if an employee of a school district has made a report or caused a report to be made to the Department under this Act involving the conduct of a current or former employee of the school district and a request is made by another school district for the provision of information concerning the job performance or qualifications of the current or former employee because he or she is an applicant for employment with the requesting school district, the general superintendent of the school district to which the request is being made must disclose to the requesting school district the fact that an employee of the school district has made a report involving the conduct of the applicant. . . . 325 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/4. Under this provision, it is conceivable that a school's reporting a teacher to the DCFS could constitute a deprivation insofar as it wreaked havoc on a person's ability to find new employment in his chosen field. One can only imagine that a person who had been accused of such abuse would not wish to remain a part of her current school in the future. Yet, any attempt to apply for a job with a different district would likely be frustrated when the other school sought information concerning the applicant. [1] Ultimately, however, we do not address this issue, in light of the fact that the above-quoted language was added to the statute after the events in the present case took place. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that the act of reporting under ANCRA to the DCFS alone has such a negative, de facto effect on a teacher's reputation that she is thereby rendered incapable of pursuing her chosen career. Absent such evidence, and because the quoted language in Section 4 was not operative at the time of the acts giving rise to the present case, Oest, Lunn and Vicini's act in causing Purvis to be reported to the police, and indirectly to the DCFS, did not in itself effect a deprivation. This is not the end of the matter, however. Instead, we must grapple with the possibility that the potentially biased nature of the school's investigation corrupted the integrity of the subsequent investigations by the DCFS and Chief Bernabei, essentially as found by the district court. Oest, Lunn and Vicini contend that the ensuing investigations by O'Brien and Bernabei were sufficiently independent as to afford Purvis the requisite due process before any deprivation occurred. They appeal to our prior decision in Trejo v. Shoben, where we held that even if the initial investigator in that case were brimming over with animosity . . . [his] reasoning and recommendation to terminate probationary employee Trejo was reviewed by two separate, independent faculty committees which conducted their own investigations of the charges and likewise came to the conclusion that Trejo's misconduct warranted his removal from the faculty. 319 F.3d 878, 888 (7th Cir.2003). In the same way, Oest, Lunn and Vicini argue, the investigations by Bernabei and O'Brien were wholly independent. None of the school officials assisted with the police and DCFS investigations. It is a factual question whether the DCFS and the police investigations were sufficiently independent as to cure any due-process deficiency in the earlier inquiries conducted by the school. There is certainly sufficient evidence for a jury to answer this question in the affirmative, given the considerable inculpatory evidence uncovered by Bernabei, which is detailed above, and the fact that O'Brien participated in a second interview of M.R. Nevertheless, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Purvis, we find that a reasonable jury could find that the investigations conducted by O'Brien and Bernabei were not sufficiently independent to cure any constitutional infirmity inherent in the school's original investigation. Unlike in Trejo, where the independent faculty committees were apprised of all relevant facts, there is no evidence in the record that either O'Brien or Bernabei was made aware of Vicini's potential bias and his role in pressuring (arguably intimidating) M.R. into providing the inculpatory statement that started the ball rolling. We believe that a jury is best placed to resolve the factual questions presented here. We therefore conclude that the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, reveals a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the school's investigation (1) was fundamentally biased and (2) deprived Purvis of her protected liberty interest in her employment by corrupting the DCFS and police investigations, which ultimately resulted in her losing her job and ongoing ability to work as a teacher. In this regard, the district court is sustained. The remaining question concerns Oest, Vicini and Lunn's right to qualified immunity.