The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES B. MORAN
Plaintiff Pat Dandino (Dandino) brought this action against defendants Charles Tieri (Tieri) and the Village of Steger (Village) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. Dandino claims that his alleged patronage dismissal from the Village police force was a violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and a violation of Illinois common law on retaliatory discharge. Before us now is defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), alleging that Dandino cannot show the element of causation, that they are protected from § 1983 liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity, and that Dandino has no cause of action for retaliatory discharge. For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Since this is a motion to dismiss we accept the well-pleaded allegations in Dandino's complaint. Land v. Chicago Truck Drivers, 25 F.3d 509, 511 (7th Cir. 1994). Dandino was hired by the Steger Police Department on November 3, 1986, as a part-time police officer. During the spring of 1993, the Village had mayoral elections in which two political parties, the active party and the reform party, had candidates vying for the office of mayor. Dandino supported the candidate from the reform party, and contributed money to his campaign. Dandino's support for the reform party was made known to his co-workers through discussions he had about local politics. Defendant Tieri, who was the chief of police for the Steger Police Department, allegedly supported the active party and its candidate. Soon after the Village election for mayor, the Steger Police Department had an election to determine whether the members of the police department should be represented by a union. Dandino attended meetings about possible union representation, and ultimately voted in favor of union representation in the May election.
Dandino filed a two-count complaint against Tieri and the Village. Count I, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claims that Tieri violated Dandino's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of speech and political association. Count II claims that Tieri and the Village are liable for retaliatory discharge under Illinois common law.
Defendants filed this motion to dismiss Count I on the grounds that Dandino cannot demonstrate that Tieri's conduct was the cause of his injuries, and that Tieri is protected by qualified immunity. Defendants further allege that Count II fails because Illinois does not allow a claim of retaliatory discharge for patronage dismissals.
Count I: Section 1983 Action
A. Causation and Mitigation of Damages
Section 1983 actions, like all torts, require a showing of causation. Benson v. Cady, 761 F.2d 335, 339 (7th Cir. 1985). Tieri claims that Dandino cannot establish causation since the Village has repeatedly offered him the opportunity to be reinstated, and that any injury that Dandino suffered was therefore on account of his rejection of the offers of reinstatement. The Village allegedly first made this offer during a conversation between the Village president and Dandino on December 7, 1993, four days after Dandino was fired.
The Village made the offer two more times, once in a letter dated May 10, 1994, from the Village's attorney to an investigator of the Illinois State Labor Relations Board, and once in a letter dated July 19, 1994, from the Village's attorney to Dandino's attorney.
The offers of reinstatement, however, are not dispositive at this stage of the litigation. Whether Dandino failed to mitigate his damages is a question the trier of fact must determine when calculating damages. See Smith v. Rowe, 761 F.2d 360, 366-67 (7th Cir. 1985) (mitigation of damages in § 1983 action is a question of fact for the jury). Dandino's failure to mitigate does not by itself render his otherwise properly pled claim inadequate. See United States v. Shriver, 989 F.2d 898, 906 (7th Cir. 1992) (questions of fact cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss). Granted, Tieri does go a step further by claiming that had Dandino accepted the offer of reinstatement he would have no damages and thus could not show that his conduct caused any harm. We, however, cannot make this determination on a motion to dismiss. The record is not clear when Dandino became aware of the offer, and whether the offer afforded Dandino "make-whole" relief which would include back-pay. To the extent that these issues remain in doubt, it is inappropriate to dismiss Dandino's claim. Since Dandino has alleged all that is required of him at this stage, we conclude that the § 1983 count has been properly pled.
When considering a governmental actor's individual liability under § 1983, we must also consider the doctrine of qualified immunity. "Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, 'governmental officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'" Kernats v. O'Sullivan, 35 F.3d 1171, 1175 (7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982)). The doctrine of qualified immunity requires a two-part analysis: (1) is the challenged conduct a constitutional violation, and (2) if so, was this constitutional right clearly established at the time of the conduct. Kernats, 35 F.3d at 1176. The Seventh Circuit has held that the burden of showing a clearly established constitutional right lies with the plaintiff. Id. In determining whether a constitutional right is clearly established the plaintiff must show that "'the contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand what he is doing violates that right' at the time of the incident." Id. (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639-40, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523, 107 S. Ct. 3034 (1987)).
The first prong of the qualified immunity analysis requires us to determine whether Tieri's decision to fire Dandino for political reasons violated the First Amendment. In the political patronage area courts have traditionally been mindful of the conflicting interests between a government official's need for loyal and compatible subordinates, and the First Amendment's "legacy of protecting the individual's freedom of association and his right to meaningfully exercise his political beliefs." Upton v. Thompson, 930 F.2d 1209, 1213 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1262 (1992). The Supreme Court has endeavored to strike a balance between these competing interests. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 49 L. Ed. 2d 547, 96 S. Ct. 2673 (1976); Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507, 63 L. Ed. 2d 574, 100 S. Ct. 1287 (1980); Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62, 111 L. Ed. 2d 52, 110 S. Ct. 2729 (1990). In Elrod, the Court held that while the First Amendment generally protects government employees' right of political association, an exception exists for "policymaking officials." Elrod, 427 U.S. at 367. The Court reshaped the standard somewhat in Branti; there the Court held "the ultimate ...