Freeman v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chi.

927 F.3d 961 (2019) United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2019-06-14

civil; Sections 1981 and 1983 race-discrimination discharge claims against a municipal corporation; Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal vacated as to Section 1983/Title VII/ADA discrimination claims, affirmed as to the Monell policy claim on which the Section 1981 claim depends (CA7) (result: claimant-lost)

Facts

  1. 1 Persons protected by equal contractual rights satisfied pleaded
    He alleges that the District fired him "due to his race" (African-American) and "disability" (alcoholism).
  2. 2 Plaintiff has rights in an existing or proposed contract satisfied pleaded
    Freeman began working for the District in May 2015 as an operator of a treatment plant.
  3. 2 Plaintiff has rights in an existing or proposed contract satisfied pleaded
    In his first year, Freeman, like all new hires, was a probationary worker, employed at will.
  4. 3 Formation performance termination or contractual benefits satisfied pleaded
    The District fired Freeman while he was on probation, asserting "unsatisfactory performance."
  5. 7 Judicial section 1983 remedial route for state-law impairment not pleaded
    We affirm with respect to Freeman's contention that the District fired him pursuant to a policy that is unlawful under Monell v. Department of Social Services. , 436 U.S. 658, 694-95, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).
  6. 7 Judicial section 1983 remedial route for state-law impairment not pleaded
    that law does not create a private right of action against public bodies unless the plaintiff has raised Monell allegations.
  7. 7 Judicial section 1983 remedial route for state-law impairment not pleaded
    Freeman alleges that the District disproportionately fires probationary employees who are African-American.
  8. 7 Judicial section 1983 remedial route for state-law impairment not pleaded
    But Freeman does not allege whether the policy is to treat African-Americans disparately or that the District's probation powers have a disparate impact on them.
  9. 7 Judicial section 1983 remedial route for state-law impairment not pleaded
    Because the district court recruited four attorneys to assist Freeman with pleading this claim adequately, and he had four opportunities to amend his complaint to do so and yet never did, we see no abuse of discretion in the dismissal of this claim without additional leave to amend.