03-1922 Lalvani v. Cook County (62160)

Listen to this article

“[E]mployees with a protected property interest in their jobs may not be entitled to any pre-termination process in a RIF situation, as long as an adequate posttermination procedure is available to them. As we observed in Lalvani I, CCH provided Lalvani with no pretermination procedures and only the most truncated form of post-termination procedures, if the one letter he received from Penn even deserves the label ‘procedure.’ Although Penn’s letter informed Lalvani where to direct ‘[a]ny questions [he] may have,’ only his first letter to Penn received a response. When he suggested in his second letter that he had merit employee status dating from the period in which the Governing Commission controlled CCH and that this status accorded him certain rights, his inquiry was met with silence. Under Loudermill, as well as Washington Teachers’ Union and Sorensen, we conclude that this was not enough. The confusion surrounding the jury’s answer to question 2 is, in the final analysis, irrelevant. Its answer to question 1 is unambiguous: Lalvani held merit employee status at the relevant time, and he was thus entitled to due process protection at the time of the RIF. The process he received did not measure up to the minimal standards required. His case must therefore be returned to the district court for further proceedings on the question of damages. Lalvani is entitled to recover at least nominal damages, see Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266 (1978); if he can prove actual damages, he is entitled to recover those amounts also. See also Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977).”

Reversed and Remanded.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Guzmán, J., Wood, J.