The opinion of the court was delivered by: Foreman, Chief Judge:
Currently before the Court are Cross Motions for Summary
Judgment filed by plaintiff on November 6, 1980, and by defendant
on January 12, 1981.
The standards applicable to a motion for summary judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 are well established. The
purpose of summary judgment is to prevent an unnecessary trial
where, on the basis of the pleadings and supporting documents,
there remains no material issue of fact to be tried. Kirk v. Home
Indemnity Co., 431 F.2d 554, 559 (7th Cir. 1970). Summary
judgment is appropriate only if it appears that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fitzsimmons v. Best,
528 F.2d 692, 694
(7th Cir. 1976); Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The burden is upon the
moving party to show that there is no issue of material fact in
dispute. Rose v. Bridgeport Brass Co., 487 F.2d 804, 808
(7th Cir. 1973), and all doubts as to the existence of an issue
of material fact must be resolved against the movant. Moutoux
v. Gulling Auto Electric, Inc., 295 F.2d 573, 577 (7th Cir.
1961). In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the trial
court may only determine whether or not there exists a dispute as
to a material issue of fact. It is not permitted to resolve that
dispute. Carter v. Williams, 361 F.2d 189, 194 (7th Cir.
The facts of the case are simple and undisputed and established
for purposes of this motion. They are as follows:
1. Plaintiff Larry Schanuel applied for a position as a
security guard or investigator with the Allied National Detective
Agency, Inc., in Belleville, Illinois, in July 1978.
2. The manager of the Allied National Detective Agency informed
plaintiff that under Chapter 111, paragraph 2622 of the Illinois
Revised Statutes, plaintiff was ineligible for employment with
any detective agency and refused to hire him.
3. Plaintiff in fact had a record of criminal felony conviction
which included a plea of guilty to Second Degree Robbery in
California on April 18, 1963, and a plea of guilty to a federal
charge of Transferring Government Obligations on July 25, 1967.
The parole periods for these offenses expired on or about
4. Rich Yale, the President of Allied National Detective Agency
could not say whether plaintiff would have been hired or
performed satisfactorily but for his convictions, but it was his
opinion that an individual with a criminal record could perform
satisfactorily as an unarmed security guard.
5. Plaintiff has not applied for a detective certificate with
the Department of Registration and Education.
6. Defendant Joan Anderson is the Director of the Illinois
Department of Registration and Education. Her office is created
by Illinois Revised Statutes chapter 127, paragraph 4, and she,
together with the Department of Registration and Education, is
vested with the sole authority to supervise and regulate
detective agencies within the State of Illinois.
Plaintiff filed this class action suit against defendant
Anderson in her capacity as Director of the Illinois Department
of Registration and Education, alleging that defendant has acted
under color of state law to deprive plaintiff and the class he
represents of rights secured by the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, all in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that Illinois Revised
Statutes, chapter 111, paragraph 2622 violates the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. He
seeks to bar enforcement of paragraph 2622 and a declaratory
judgment that the statute is unconstitutional on its face. The
issues as framed by the Motion for Summary Judgment are (1)
whether Illinois Revised Statutes, chapter 111, paragraph 2601,
et seq. meets the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and (2) whether the classifications established by the
same statute violate the Equal Protection Clause of the same
The relevant statute provides:
The holder of a certificate of authority may employ,
to assist him in the work of private detective and in
the conduct of such business, as many unlicensed
persons as may be necessary, pursuant to the