By: Derek Hawkins//July 28, 2015//
By: Derek Hawkins//July 28, 2015//
Civil
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Officials: FLAUM, MANION, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Workers Compensation – Property Interest in Employment – Due Process
No. 14-2746 Peter Akemann v. Patrick J. Quinn
No. 14-2328 John T. Dibble v. Patrick J. Quinn
It is unclear whether motive is relevant to determining “whether a validly enacted statutory amendment eliminating an employee’s property interest complies with procedural due process requirements”
“Plaintiffs ask us to ignore these features of the legislation and instead to divine whether Public Act 97–18 was really motivated by the intent to remove certain individuals. We could not perform this task without considering the motives of the legislators who voted for the law (quite apart from wondering whether plaintiffs have sued the right defendants if the legislation is the heart of their claims). Plaintiffs’ reliance on employment discrimination cases to justify a judicial inquiry into legislative motive is misplaced. Whether a court considers the motive of the defendant in analyzing a plain‐ tiff’s claim varies by context and the type of defendant involved. If the claim is based on a statute (e.g., Title VII) or constitutional provision (e.g., equal protection) that prohibits the defendant from taking an action for a particular reason, then courts naturally must consider motive. See Grossbaum v. Indianapolis‐Marion County Building Auth., 100 F.3d 1287, 1292–94 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining why relevance of motive or intent depends on context); Fraternal Order of Police Hobart Lodge No. 121, Inc. v. City of Hobart, 864 F.2d 551, 554–57 (7th Cir. 1988) (same). But it is a non sequitur to say that because courts consider motives for some types of claims, they should do so for all types of claims.”
Affirmed.