Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff-firefighter’s lawsuit alleging that defendant-Village Bd.’s termination of plaintiff on ground that plaintiff violated Village’s residency ordinance violated plaintiff’s due process and equal protection rights. Plaintiff received hearing to determine his residency at which plaintiff and his counsel were present and were allowed to proffer evidence, and defendant ultimately found that although plaintiff had established residency within Village, he failed to maintain said residency during three-year period of time when plaintiff had rented his house. Dist. Ct. appropriately analyzed defendant’s decision as alleged random and unauthorized conduct by state officials for purposes of satisfying any procedural due process claim. Also, under Engquist, 553 U.S. 591, plaintiff could not state valid one-on-one equal protection claim, where, as here, said action concerned plaintiff’s public employment.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Equal Protection