Houlihan v. City of Chicago

In action by plaintiffs-police officers alleging that defendants-police officials improperly considered political loyalties when demoting them from their security detail position for Mayor Daley in favor of others who had obtained said positions for incoming Chicago Mayor Emanuel, Dist. Ct. did not err in finding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, where: (1) plaintiffs had failed to identify prior case law establishing right to be free from patronage dismissal in context of instant security specialist position; and (2) defendants based claim of qualified immunity on recognized exception to 1^st Amendment prohibition from considering political views in hiring decisions, where defendants had claimed that employees holding instant security specialist position served as confidential employees to Mayor. Fact that instant position was not listed as “exempt” position under Shakman consent decree did not require different result. Also, plaintiff failed to establish any violation of Shakman consent decree, where defendants were able to show that those selected for Mayor Emanuel’s security detail were qualified for said position due to fact that they had successfully performed in said position during relevant transition period. Additionally, Dist. Ct. did not err in preventing plaintiffs from presenting evidence of past quota system that required specific number of African-Americans officers in instant security detail in their claim that they were demoted because of their race, since Dist. Ct. was free to find that said proposed evidence was too prejudicial and not probative of current decision-maker’s motive in selecting successful candidates for security specialist position.