Stagman v. Ryan
| Decision Date | 06 May 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-1943,98-1943 |
| Citation | 176 F.3d 986 |
| Parties | 161 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2204, 138 Lab.Cas. P 58,637 Sander P. STAGMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James RYAN, Joseph Claps, Edward Ludwig, and Richard Jones, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Michael J. Foley (argued), Foley & Foley, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Darryl B. Simko (argued), Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees except Jones.
Mildred F. Haggerty, Kathrin Koenig (argued), Haggerty, Koenig & Hill, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee Jones.
Before POSNER, Chief Judge, and COFFEY and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
Sander Stagman brought his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against, in their individual capacities, the Illinois Attorney General, James Ryan, and Joseph Claps and Edward Ludwig, officials with the Office of the Illinois Attorney General ("AG's Office"), as well as Richard Jones, an employee of the AG's Office, who also served as president of the Illinois Federation of Teachers Local 4747 AFT/AFL-CIO ("Union"). Stagman alleges these individuals violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and free assembly through their actions that culminated in his dismissal from the AG's Office. He challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ryan, Claps, Ludwig, and Jones. We, however, agree with the district court's assessment that Stagman did not establish issues of material fact to support his claims and deny Stagman's appeal.
From April 1987 until December 1995, the AG's Office employed Stagman as an accountant. His claims relate primarily to four events--a denial of vacation time, his involvement with the Union, an incident with the Palos Heights Police Department, and the Union elections--that occurred during his time with the AG's Office.
The first event occurred during the spring of 1995. In addition to his duties with the AG's Office, Stagman, with the knowledge and approval of the AG's Office, also ran a private accounting business. Because of this outside work, during the spring, he often took vacation time to meet the needs of his private clients. As was his usual practice, Stagman requested vacation time during the spring of 1995. Chief of the Department of Public Safety Joseph Claps approved the request. After learning about Stagman's plan to take a vacation, Edward Ludwig, Chief of the Department of Administration and Stagman's immediate supervisor, asked Claps to cancel Stagman's request because, Ludwig asserted, a backlog of work existed that needed Stagman's attention. Stagman disputes Ludwig's statements about this event. After the permission had been rescinded, Illinois State Senator Howard Carroll interceded on behalf of Stagman. He brought the matter to the attention of Attorney General James Ryan, and Ryan intervened to have Stagman's vacation time restored.
Some time after the resolution of the vacation issue, Stagman became more involved in the Union, which he had joined in 1989. Richard Jones, the president of the Union, recommended Stagman to be one of the Union's stewards. Troubles ensued almost immediately. Stagman asserts that he pursued his duties aggressively, but always conducted himself appropriately. Jones, however, contends that he received complaints from other Union officers and stewards about Stagman's conduct. As a result, Jones and the other members of the Union's board removed Stagman from his position only one month after he had assumed it. Stagman claims his removal resulted from a complaint from Ludwig regarding Stagman's pursuit of another employee's complaint. Jones, however, contends that Stagman was removed from his Union position because he failed to follow the Union board's direction and cooperate with its members, failed to represent the bargaining unit members responsibly, and interfered with the activities of other stewards. Jones sent a memo to Stagman notifying him of the dismissal. He also forwarded the memo to members of the AG's Office management, including Ludwig, in accordance with the Union's bargaining agreement.
In addition to removing Stagman from the position of steward, the memo also stated that Stagman would not be a member of the Union's bargaining team for its upcoming negotiation session with the AG's Office. Stagman had volunteered to be a part of this team, but at that point had not participated in any bargaining sessions. At the time Jones circulated the memo, the Union had not yet informed the AG's Office as to whom it had selected as the members of the bargaining team. Stagman alleges that he was removed from the bargaining team because of intervention by Ludwig. Stagman contends that when Ludwig learned of Stagman's plans to participate in the bargaining sessions, Ludwig objected because he believed Stagman would be more aggressive and diligent than Jones and create problems for management during the negotiations. According to Donald Morgan, at one time acting Director of Human Resources and who before July 1, 1995, was assigned personnel duties by Ludwig, Ludwig sent another employee to persuade the Union to remove Stagman from the bargaining team. In addition, Stagman contends that a member of the Union board, Thomasina Jeffers, eventually told him that the "real" reason he was removed from the bargaining team was that Ludwig had demanded it. Stagman asserts that Jones colluded with Ludwig to remove Stagman from the bargaining team, pointing to the fact that Jones sent a copy of his dismissal letter to Ludwig.
In the fall of 1995, Stagman again became involved in union activities. At this time, the Union membership voted on a draft agreement between the Union and management. After the parties reached a tentative agreement, Jones posted a memorandum urging Union members to reject the contract. The AG's Office responded to the concerns raised by Jones by posting a rebuttal in which it explained its position. A few days later, Stagman authored an anonymous critique of the proposed agreement as well, which he posted on the Union bulletin board and distributed to Union members. Stagman believes his critique upset Ludwig, who allegedly told the AG's Office Chief of Staff Stephen Culliton that Stagman's analysis led to the defeat of the initial agreement. Ludwig admits that he believed Stagman had written the critical analysis. The AG's Office, however, did not respond to Stagman's analysis. Although Union members rejected this tentative agreement, they ultimately voted on and ratified a similar agreement in October. After the contract issue had been resolved, Stagman declared that he would run for president of the Union against Jones in the December election.
The third event of importance to this story occurred during the fall of 1995 as well. In the middle of October, Deputy Chief of Investigations Daniel Callahan opened an investigation examining Stagman's dealings with the Palos Heights Police Department. On behalf of one of his private clients, Stagman had called the Palos Heights Police Department to obtain a copy of a police report about an accident in which the private client had been involved. After being told no report existed, Stagman, at the very least, identified himself as being with the AG's Office and asked to speak with a higher ranking officer. Sergeant Charles Hankus returned Stagman's call. After their conversation, Stagman went to the Palos Heights Police Department and picked up a copy of the report. The Palos Heights Police Department, then, contacted Callahan asking about a "Sergeant Stagman" who had acted in an unprofessional manner. Callahan then informed Chief of Investigations Edward Bishop and Claps, who directed him to open the investigation.
In October, Callahan questioned Stagman about the incident. Stagman admitted to stating that he was with the AG's Office, but denied having described himself as a sergeant. Upon Callahan's request, Stagman submitted a written report of the incident in which he also named two witnesses to his telephone conversations with the Palos Heights Police Department. Callahan also obtained a report from Hankus about the incident. He did not conduct any other interviews or contact the witnesses noted in Stagman's report. Callahan summarized his findings in a report in which he concluded that Stagman was guilty of impersonating an officer.
Stagman claims that during this investigation Callahan kept Ludwig informed about his progress. According to Morgan, Ludwig at one point said "Now we've got him." Callahan, however, stated that he only talked to Claps, Bishop, Stagman, and members of the Palos Heights Police Department during the investigation.
In a November meeting, Callahan reported the findings from his investigation to Culliton, Claps, Bishop, Ludwig, and Labor Counsel James Carroll. During the meeting, these individuals expressed concerns about the potential criminal nature of Stagman's actions. Some individuals recommended that Stagman be dismissed if he had identified himself as a "sergeant." Stagman alleges that Ludwig told Morgan that before Stagman could be dismissed they had to check with Ryan. Callahan does not recall anyone at the meeting mentioning the need to report to Ryan. Ultimately, Culliton, who was unaware of Stagman's union-related activities, decided to dismiss Stagman. General Ryan did learn of the dismissal and informed Senator Carroll of it.
Ludwig sent a memorandum to Stagman on December 8, 1995, notifying him that his dismissal would be effective as of December 13, 1995. He stated six reasons for the termination of Stagman's employment: (1) interceding into a police matter for a private client; (2) using his employment with the AG's Office for the benefit of a private client; (3) invoking the name of the AG's office to benefit a private client; (4) representing himself as a "sergeant" to the Palos Heights Police Department; (5)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grogg v. Csx Transp., Inc., Cause No. 1:07-CV-222.
...in the record, cannot preclude summary judgment. Albiero v. City of Kankakee, 246 F.3d 927, 933 (7th Cir.2001); Stagman v. Ryan, 176 F.3d 986, 995 (7th Cir.1999); Slowiak v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 987 F.2d 1293, 1295 (7th 1. Motion for Summary Judgment for Lack of Evidence. The FELA provides, ......
-
Bagienski v. Madison County, Indiana
...in the record, cannot preclude summary judgment. Albiero v. City of Kankakee, 246 F.3d 927, 933 (7th Cir. 2001); Stagman v. Ryan, 176 F.3d 986, 995 (7th Cir.1999); Slowiak v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 987 F.2d 1293, 1295 (7th Cir.1993). II. Count I: Violation of Civil Rights, Pursuant to 42 U.S.C......
-
Olayan v. Holder
...in the record, cannot preclude summary judgment. Albiero v. City of Kankakee, 246 F.3d 927, 933 (7th Cir.2001); Stagman v. Ryan, 176 F.3d 986, 995 (7th Cir.1999); Slowiak v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 987 F.2d 1293, 1295 (7th Cir.1993). Courts frequently encounter cross-motions for summary judgmen......
-
Brettler v. Purdue University
...by the court. See, e.g., Albiero v. City of Kankakee, 246 F.3d 927, 933 (7th Cir.2001) (self-serving affidavits); Stagman v. Ryan, 176 F.3d 986, 995 (7th Cir.1999) (speculation or conjecture); Pfeil v. Rogers, 757 F.2d 850, 862 (7th Cir.1985) (legal conclusions). A pro se litigant's pleadin......
-
Compel, resist and amend discovery
...Cir. 1992). E. A trial court’s discovery ruling will not be disturbed except for clear error or abuse of discretion. See Stagman v. Ryan , 176 F.3d 986, 993-94 (7th Cir. 1999); Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. , 175 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir. 1999); Burger King Corp. v. Weaver , 169 F.3d 1310, 13......
-
Compel, resist and amend discovery
...for clear error or abuse of discretion. See Nigg v. United States Postal Serv. , 555 F.3d 781, 789-90 (9th Cir. 2009); Stagman v. Ryan , 176 F.3d 986, 993-94 (7th Cir. 1999); Burger King Corp. v. Weaver , 169 F.3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir. 1999); National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chem. Co. , 165......
-
Compel, resist and amend discovery
...Cir. 1992). E. A trial court’s discovery ruling will not be disturbed except for clear error or abuse of discretion. See Stagman v. Ryan , 176 F.3d 986, 993-94 (7th Cir. 1999); Simula, Inc. v. Autoliv, Inc. , 175 F.3d 716, 726 (9th Cir. 1999); Burger King Corp. v. Weaver , 169 F.3d 1310, 13......
-
Compel, resist and amend discovery
...for clear error or abuse of discretion. See Nigg v. United States Postal Serv. , 555 F.3d 781, 789-90 (9th Cir. 2009); Stagman v. Ryan , 176 F.3d 986, 993-94 (7th Cir. 1999); Burger King Corp. v. Weaver , 169 F.3d 1310, 1315 (11th Cir. 1999); National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chem. Co. , 165......