## Facts

- Larry Garcia worked for the Kankakee County Housing Authority (KCHA) for years, rising from warehouse clerk to Director of Technical Services.
- In 1998, KCHA’s executive director and the prior board members left, and new board members took over the agency.
- The new board asked Garcia to serve as Interim Executive Director, and he began in that role on December 4, 1998.
- Garcia contended KCHA assured him that once a permanent executive director was hired, he could return to his Director of Technical Services position.
- KCHA provided employees an employment manual stating it did not create contractual rights and that employees could be terminated at will; the manual also included statements that well-performing employees could expect to remain employed and that an employee could receive a hearing before a discharge became final.
- Soon after becoming interim executive director, Garcia and the new board chairman, Charles E. Ruch, Jr., clashed over leadership and authority within KCHA.
- Garcia sent memoranda to board members complaining about Ruch’s conduct and urging other members to restrain him.
- Garcia also attended public meetings on KCHA-related matters (including discussions about extending services to the Pembroke area) when Ruch sought to be KCHA’s sole representative.
- The board viewed Garcia as insubordinate, removed him from the office, and terminated him without pre-termination notice or a pre-termination hearing; he was fired as interim executive director and also lost his Director of Technical Services position, after only 18 days as interim executive director.
- KCHA later provided Garcia an extensive post-discharge hearing before making the termination final, and continued paying him until the termination became final.
- Garcia sued KCHA, Ruch, and another official under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging (1) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and (2) denial of procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and Garcia appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Garcia’s discharge violated the First Amendment because it was based on his memos criticizing the board chairman and his participation in public meetings concerning KCHA matters.
2. Whether Garcia had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment that required notice and an opportunity to be heard before termination, and whether the post-discharge hearing was constitutionally sufficient.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for KCHA and the individual defendants.
- The court rejected the First Amendment claim, concluding that the board could discharge Garcia in a conflict over who would set and carry out the agency’s direction; Garcia’s conduct showed either that he occupied a policymaking role subject to dismissal for lack of support for the leadership’s agenda, or that he was properly discharged for obstructing the chain of command.
- The court rejected the due process claim because Garcia lacked a protected property interest in continued employment under Illinois law given the handbook’s express at-will and no-contract disclaimers; general language about job expectations and a possible hearing did not create a constitutional entitlement.
- The court also indicated that, even if some entitlement were assumed, the procedures provided—including an extensive post-discharge hearing and pay until the decision became final—did not amount to a constitutional violation.

## Legal Principles

- Government employers have greater latitude than criminal or civil regulators to control employee conduct and speech that affects agency operations; a public employer may insist that employees carry out the program chosen by politically accountable officials.
- High-level or policymaking employees may be dismissed for failing to support the policy direction of the agency’s leadership, consistent with the patronage-dismissal line of cases (including Elrod and Branti).
- Even for employees who are not policymakers, the First Amendment does not shield actions that interfere with workplace authority and operations, such as countermanding supervisory instructions within the agency.
- A procedural due process claim requires a property interest created by state law, contract, or similar source; an at-will relationship, especially reinforced by clear handbook disclaimers that no contract is formed, ordinarily does not create such an interest.
- Alleged violations of contract-like expectations or internal procedures do not automatically become federal due process violations; without a protected property interest, the Constitution does not require particular pre-termination procedures.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that Garcia’s termination stemmed from a leadership and operational conflict at a public housing authority and did not violate the First Amendment, and it further held that Garcia lacked a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment because KCHA’s handbook preserved at-will status and disclaimed contractual rights, defeating his procedural due process claim.


Garcia v. Kankakee County Housing Authority, 279 F.3d 532 (2002)