Young v. Brashears

• Decision Date: 23 August 1977
• Docket Number: No. 76-1749,76-1749
• Citation: 560 F.2d 1337
• Parties: Quentin D. YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edwin L. BRASHEARS, Jr., Individually and as Chairman of the Health and Hospitals Governing Commission of Cook County, and Charles A. Davis, Mrs. W. Miles Burns, John W. B. Hadley, Ellsworth E. Hasbrouck, Richard Kessler, and George Hill, Individually and as members of said Commission and James G. Haughton, Individually and as Executive Director of said Commission, Defendants- Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 1337

560 F.2d 1337

Quentin D. YOUNG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edwin L. BRASHEARS, Jr., Individually and as Chairman of the

Health and Hospitals Governing Commission of Cook County,

and Charles A. Davis, Mrs. W. Miles Burns, John W. B.

Hadley, Ellsworth E. Hasbrouck, Richard Kessler, and George

Hill, Individually and as members of said Commission and

James G. Haughton, Individually and as Executive Director of

said Commission, Defendants- Appellants.

No. 76-1749.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Jan. 18, 1977.

Decided Aug. 23, 1977.

William P. Tuggle, Chicago, Ill., for defendants-appellants.

Richard F. Watt, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BAUER and WOOD, Circuit Judges, and FOREMAN, District Judge. ^*

HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Circuit Judge.

Following a strike by interns and residents at the Cook County Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, plaintiff was terminated from his position as Clinical Director of the Department of Medicine. Plaintiff was notified of his termination in a letter from defendant Haughton, Executive Director of the Health and Hospitals Governing Commission of Cook County, who advised plaintiff that his termination was effective immediately and directed him to vacate his office by 5:00 p. m. that day. The letter did not state any reasons for plaintiff's termination, nor did it refer to a hearing of any kind. In a memorandum transmitted by plaintiff to defendant Haughton shortly after receipt of the termination letter, plaintiff challenged the right of the Commission to terminate his employment without a specification of charges, and a due process hearing. Plaintiff further advised defendant Haughton of his intention to remain on duty until he was provided with such procedures.

Approximately two weeks after receipt of the termination notice, plaintiff filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to enjoin defendants from terminating him, interfering with the performance of his duties, or refusing to pay him until he was provided a full and fair hearing. Following the testimony of witnesses and arguments by counsel, the district court determined that in his position as Clinical Director plaintiff possessed a property interest which entitled him to a hearing in conformity with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ¹ The court then entered a temporary restraining order and ordered the parties to submit to the court written suggestions as to what type of hearing plaintiff should be afforded. On the basis of these suggestions the court fashioned a set of procedures which it directed the parties to follow, and retained jurisdiction over the cause for the purpose of enforcing its orders, for the purpose of review should any party seek it, and "to ensure that the constitutional rights of the parties have been fully observed and protected." The issue to be decided was defined by the court as "whether the charges brought against the plaintiff, Dr. Young, by the defendant, Health and Hospitals Governing Commission, are shown to be substantiated and whether they provide sufficient cause for the discipline sought to be invoked against him."

Consistent with the court's order, the parties proceeded in the following manner. Defendants notified plaintiff of the specific charges against him and of the discipline sought to be invoked if the charges were proven. ² A three-member ³ panel was established to hear evidence, determine findings of fact with respect to whether the charges were substantiated, and prepare conclusions of law as to whether those charges found to be substantiated provided sufficient cause to terminate plaintiff. ⁴ The panel's findings of fact were made binding on the Commission but its conclusions of law regarding the discipline were not. ⁵ At the conclusion of the hearing the panel transmitted to the Commission its written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The panel found plaintiff guilty of four and one-half of the six charges against him, and recommended that the Commission discipline plaintiff by reprimand and suspension for 30 days without pay. ⁶

The Commission, after hearing oral argument by both sides, rejected the recommendation of the panel and voted to terminate plaintiff from his position. A resolution terminating plaintiff and stating the reasons therefor was submitted to the court as required by its order.

Immediately thereafter, plaintiff petitioned the court to review the Commission's resolution and to grant permanent injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from terminating him from his position as Clinical Director of the Department of Medicine. The district court, after extensive consideration of the panel's findings of fact and the Commission's resolution, concluded that the reasons provided by the Commission for terminating plaintiff were not supported by the record and were therefore arbitrary and capricious. ⁷ The court further concluded on the basis of the Commission's departure from the record and usurpation of the fact finding function of the panel, that it was unable to find the Commission sufficiently impartial under the requirements of the Due Process Clause. Observing that federal court is not the proper entity to run a hospital and expressing dissatisfaction with assuming the task of determining the proper sanctions against plaintiff, the court adopted the recommendations of the panel's report which it found to be the thorough and thoughtful work of two prominent lawyers who had no previous contact with the controversy. Accordingly the court granted plaintiff permanent injunctive relief with the exception of reprimand and suspension for thirty days. From this order defendants appeal.

The following two questions are before us for review: 1) whether the district court erred in concluding that under the law of the state of Illinois plaintiff possessed a property interest in his position as Clinical Director of the Department of Medicine; and 2) whether the district court erred in its determination that the Commission's decision to terminate plaintiff as represented by the Commission's statement of reasons was not supported by the record and was therefore arbitrary and capricious. ⁸

I. PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY INTEREST

Relying upon the development of relevant Illinois statutes and the only Illinois case concerning the termination of a medical director at Cook County Hospital, Hoffman v. Wilkins, 132 Ill.App.2d 810, 270 N.E.2d 594 (1971), the district court concluded that plaintiff possessed a property interest in his position as Clinical Director and was thereby protected from termination without due process. Neither plaintiff nor defendants challenge the district court's reference to Illinois law in deciding the sufficiency of plaintiff's claim of entitlement to his employment. ⁹ Defendants do challenge, however, the court's conclusion that plaintiff possesses a property right in his employment. Because the decision below turns on the court's interpretation of various enactments and deletions by the Illinois legislature, and the thrust of defendants' argument similarly involves interpretation of these same legislative actions, it is necessary to summarize the development of the statutes dealing with the hiring and firing of Cook County Hospital employees such as plaintiff.

In what the Hoffman court recognized as an effort to secure future accreditation by the National Joint Committee on the Accreditation of Hospitals, the Illinois legislature in 1969 transferred management responsibility for the Cook County Hospital facilities from the County Board of Commissioners to the newly established Governing Commission. Hoffman, supra, 132 Ill.App.2d at 812, 270 N.E.2d at 602. At the same time the legislature commenced a series of other changes which resulted in the transfer of employees from the control and supervision of the County Board to the Governing Commission and the use of the Merit System rather than the Civil Service System for appointment, promotion, demotion and removal. Two important sections of the Illinois Revised Statutes by which some of these changes were affected are §§ 5021 and 5026 of Chapter 34. Section 5021 provided the Commission with power to appoint chief administrative officers and such other administrators, medical directors and other executive and administrative employees as the Commission deemed necessary. ¹⁰ All appointed positions under § 5021 were Civil Service positions with the exception of chief administrative officers. 1969 Ill.Rev.Stat. Ch. 34, § 1144. Civil Service employees could not be removed, discharged or suspended for more than thirty days except for cause to be determined in conformity with certain specified procedures. 1969 Ill.Rev.Stat. Ch. 34, § 1118 and § 1119. Chief administrative officers by virtue of § 5021 served at the pleasure of the Commission.

In 1970 the Illinois legislature amended § 5021 and added § 5026 to the Governing Commission Act. ¹¹ As amended, § 5021 transferred the power to appoint administrators, medical directors and other executive and administrative employees from the Commission to the chief administrative officers. These appointments were to be made only "by and with the consent of the Commission." All other employees were to be appointed in accordance with the Merit System.

Section 5026 transferred to the Governing Commission all county officers and employees who were subject to the supervision and control of the Commission, and established the Merit System under which most employees of the Act were placed. ¹² All appointments and promotions, excluding positions under § 5021 (e. g. medical directors), were to be made solely on the basis of merit and fitness. However, medical directors who held civil service status in that position for longer than 10 years as of the effective date of the 1970 amendments were expressly protected in that position under the Merit System. Also, employees holding permanent civil service status...