United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Employment — public employment — due process
Where a public employee was given a hearing before his suspension, and judicial review was available, his due process rights were not violated.
“Illinois offered Simmons ample process. He had a full hearing before being suspended. After the board ruled that he had been insubordinate, he enjoyed judicial review. Cf. United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 53 (1993); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 538–41 (1981) (the opportunity to litigate in state court is all the process due for a state actor’s unauthorized departure from requirements of state law), overruled in part on other grounds by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). Simmons could have asked the state’s appellate court to award back pay, but he did not. He could have asked the state’s appellate court to remand to the board so that it could make the finding that would have entitled him to back pay even on the defendants’ understanding of §5/10–2.1–17, but he did not do that either. The due process clause does not permit a litigant to disdain his opportunities under state law and then demand that the federal judiciary supply a remedy.”
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, McDade, J., Easterbrook, J.