of the other defendants. Walsh alleges, for example, that Sgt. Tasch acted wrongfully in not telling him that police had arrested and jailed Hannah, in not giving him "notice" prior to the trip to the Medical Section, and in delivering him to Curry for the allegedly illegal "interrogation." But Curry's "interrogation" did not violate Walsh's federal rights. If Curry did not violate Walsh's federal rights, Sgt. Tasch could not have violated them by merely delivering Walsh to Curry to be pressured. Walsh cannot point to any federal law that required Tasch to tell him of his wife's arrest, so that claim fails. As for notice, the evidence is undisputed that Tasch gave Walsh forms which set forth the charges against him, and Walsh acknowledged them. If federal law required notice in this situation, Tasch gave it. Tasch thus did not violate Walsh's federal rights.
Walsh accuses Sgt. Zdora and Officer Kane of two wrongs: aiding Curry in his illegal "interrogation" and giving false statements about his alleged drug use. The former wrong, as demonstrated earlier, is not a constitutional wrong. This court thus cannot hold Zdora and Kane liable under § 1983 for assisting Curry. As for the latter conduct, Walsh does not indicate which federal constitutional or statutory provision Zdora and Kane violated in providing false information. The Due Process Clause does not require government officers to be truthful; it requires only sufficient procedures to demonstrate untruthfulness and thereby rebut any resulting negative inferences. Walsh never demonstrates how Zdora and Kane deprived him of this right, and thus his claims of constitutional deprivation once again fall.
Walsh then turns to Leonard Zaleski, the Department's Assistant Deputy Superintendent. Walsh accuses him of not doing enough to learn that the accusations against Walsh were unfounded, wrongfully recommending acceptance of his resignation despite the lack of support for the underlying charges, and being inattentive to Walsh's rights by allowing Curry to coerce a resignation from him. Because Curry did not act unlawfully in obtaining Walsh's resignation, this court cannot hold Zaleski liable for having allowed Curry to do what he did.
Walsh's other claim against Zaleski reflect weaknesses similar to those seen earlier. Walsh insists that Zaleski should have seen to it that the charges against him were better substantiated, but Walsh does not indicate which federal law requires this. To the contrary, as noted above, absent proof from the former employee that his resignation was involuntary, a court presumes that a resignation is voluntary; this court can hardly fault an employer on constitutional or statutory grounds for failing to operate under a different presumption. It is undisputed that as far as Department officials knew, Hannah Walsh implicated Officer Walsh; it is only in hindsight that anyone has submitted evidence challenging this premise.
This brings the court to Fred Rice, Jr., Chicago's former Police Superintendent. Walsh accuses Rice too of inattention to his rights, but as demonstrated above, none of the other defendants violated Walsh's federal rights, so this court must exonerate Rice along with them. Walsh appears to have tied the liability of the City of Chicago to Rice's individual liability, and thus since Rice has prevailed, so must the City. All of the defendants are thus entitled to summary judgment on Count 1 of Walsh's complaint. As for Count 2, it alleges a conspiracy to commit the misconduct alleged in Count 1. As Count 1 goes, so must Count 2.
This leaves Walsh with his state law claims, as stated in Counts 5-6. This court exercises jurisdiction over these claims as part of its pendent jurisdiction, as Walsh has raised substantial federal claims (albeit unsuccessfully) which share a common nucleus of fact and law with his state law claims. The parties expect all of these claims to be tried here (no one has challenged jurisdiction or urged this court to ignore Counts 5-6 if the defendants received judgment on Counts 1-2), and as the court has dealt with some of their issues already, it is in the interest of judicial economy for this court to reach the motions pertaining to those counts. See Graf v. Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Ry. Co., 790 F.2d 1341, 1347-48 (7th Cir. 1986) (federal courts may retain jurisdiction over pendent state claims when court has committed substantial judicial resources to resolution of case, such that sending the parties to state court will result in duplication of effort).
In Count 5, Walsh alleges slander (actually, defamation) under Illinois law. Walsh claims that the defendants are responsible for the communication of the three pieces of false information noted earlier. The defendants, however, claim that Walsh has failed to submit any evidence that they caused dissemination of this information. Illinois requires the plaintiff to demonstrate such causation, even if only by showing the defendant's negligence. See Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Jacobson, 713 F.2d 262, 273 (7th Cir. 1983) (applying Illinois law -- at a minimum, plaintiff in defamation case must prove defendants acted negligently in causing dissemination of information). The defendants are thus entitled to summary judgment on Count 5 of Walsh's complaint.
This leaves the court with Walsh's claim for breach of his union contract. It is undisputed that that contract contained grievance procedures, as set forth in its ninth Article. Section 9.8 of that Article provides: "It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that the procedures set forth in this Article shall be mandatory as to any grievance unless expressly and specifically excluded by the terms of this Agreement." (Emphasis added) It is further undisputed that despite this language, Officer Walsh did not avail himself of the contract's grievance mechanisms.
It is settled under federal and Illinois law that a worker must exhaust the grievance mechanisms of a union contract before filing suit, absent a breach by the union of its duty of fair representation. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 184-86, 17 L. Ed. 2d 842, 87 S. Ct. 903 (1967); Cosentino v. Price, 136 Ill. App. 3d 490, 483 N.E.2d 297, 300, 91 Ill. Dec. 15 (1985). Walsh makes no claim that the Fraternal Order of Police breached its duty of fair representation. He does assert that a union officer told him after his resignation that he would have to hire his own lawyer to challenge the Department, but Walsh does not show how this action was wrongful, arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. See Vaca, 386 U.S. at 190. The court can reach only one conclusion: Walsh has not properly exhausted his contractual remedies. He thus cannot press his claim for breach of contract.
For the reasons stated above, the court grants the defendants summary judgment on all of Walsh's claims.
DATE: April 20, 1989