Schuyler Roche, P.C.

Defending the City of Chicago in a federal lawsuit alleging wrongful termination, SRZ won a motion to dismiss some five months after the plaintiff, a discharged worker, had filed the complaint. Presiding over this action was the Honorable Judge Ruben Castillo. The plaintiff, formerly employed by the Corporation Counsel as a legal secretary, alleged municipal liability under state and federal law, accusing the city of retaliatory discharge. She also alleged that the city had terminated her in violation of her First Amendment and due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. Determined to save the city time and money, SRZ filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

On the claim of retaliatory discharge, we argued that although it is the policy of this state to protect people who criticize their employers, the plaintiff had failed to position herself as a whistle-blower, her grievance amounting to discontent with a co-worker who, in her opinion, spoke too loudly in the workplace.

In arguing that the city had violated her First Amendment freedom of speech, the plaintiff relied upon her purported right to complain to her superiors about alleged misconduct among co-workers and their misuse of the city’s resources. SRZ countered that to prevail on a charge of First Amendment retaliation, the plaintiff’s argument needed to cross the threshold of protected speech, not just free speech.

To support her allegation that the city had violated her due process rights, the plaintiff argued that she had a protected property interest in her position with the city. In challenging this argument, SRZ noted that, unlike contractually-bound employees, whom an employer can discharge for cause only, the plaintiff was an at-will employee terminable at any time for any reason. If one does not have a contract, one does not have property to protect, SRZ established.

After a full briefing on the motion to dismiss and before deciding on it, Judge Castillo requested that both parties and their counsel attend a settlement conference, over which he would preside. Believing the settlement demand to be unreasonable, SRZ advised the city not to settle. Ultimately, in granting the motion to dismiss, the court agreed with our arguments that the plaintiff had failed to allege the requisite elements to establish municipal liability, that her speech did not require First Amendment protection and that the city had not violated her due process rights. “The plaintiff never proved,” explains Thomas Draths, senior attorney handling this matter, “that our client had acted pursuant to policy practices that resulted in injury under either state or federal law.”