Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS—7th Cir.: Illinois township was entitled to dismissal of senior-center workers’ political-retaliation claims, (Aug 3, 2026)

By Mandavi Singh, LL.M.

The workers presented no evidence that incoming officials were aware of their Republican campaigning and failed to rebut the township’s independent reasons for eliminating their positions.

A suburban Illinois township properly obtained summary judgment on First Amendment retaliation claims brought by two longtime senior-center employees whose positions were abolished after a new political slate took office. The Seventh Circuit found no evidence that the officials responsible for restructuring the center knew the employees had campaigned for the incoming supervisor’s Republican opponent. Even assuming such knowledge, the employees failed to rebut evidence that the township would have eliminated their positions regardless of their political activity (Fox v. DuPage Township, No. 24-3325 (7th Cir. July 31, 2026)).

Senior center. The employees worked at a township facility that provides programs for senior citizens and hosts private events. One joined the township in 2001 as the facility’s administrator and later became its senior program director. She hired the second employee in 2005 as a banquet supervisor and bartender. That employee became the senior recreational director in 2015.

The individual who later became township supervisor began preparing to seek the office in 2018. He attended township meetings and observed the senior center’s operations before announcing his candidacy. Based on those observations, he concluded that the two employees were unqualified to lead the facility and that the center was “not being managed properly.”

In addition, the future supervisor believed that the employees had blamed other people for operational problems rather than accepting responsibility. According to the evidence, his dissatisfaction with their management predated both the 2021 election campaign and their support for his opponent.

Campaign activity. The candidate ran for supervisor in the 2021 election as a Democrat on a slate with four trustee candidates. The two employees supported the Republican write-in candidate opposing him. Both attended at least one campaign fundraiser, stuffed envelopes, and distributed campaign literature. One also made a financial contribution to the Republican campaign.

Their manager, who also served as an assistant to the incumbent township supervisor, supported the same Republican candidate. Other township employees or their relatives also participated in the campaign.

Neither employee presented evidence that any member of the Democratic slate had observed her campaigning. The senior program director acknowledged that she never discussed her Republican affiliation or campaign activities with the incoming supervisor or the trustee candidates. The recreational director similarly testified that she had not discussed her political involvement with them and did not even know the identities of the trustee candidates running on the slate.

Restructuring. The Democratic slate won the election and took office on May 17, 2021. At the new board’s first meeting the following day, the trustees abolished the employees’ positions and approved a revised organizational structure.

Subsequently, the township replaced its overlapping senior center roles with two positions with distinct responsibilities: senior center director and township administrator. The organizational chart presented to the board identified the positions but did not include the names of the employees who would fill them. The board also did not discuss either of the terminated employees by name while considering the restructuring.

The former manager became the senior center director, while an individual who had campaigned for the incoming supervisor became the township administrator. The former manager had supported the same Republican candidate as the displaced employees, yet received a promotion and the same salary as the Democratic campaign supporter appointed as township administrator.

In addition, the township retained the recreational director’s daughter, who had campaigned for the Republican candidate. Those employment decisions, the township maintained, were inconsistent with the allegation that it had reorganized the facility to punish Republican political activity.

Lawsuit. The two employees sued the township and two officials in Illinois state court. They asserted First Amendment retaliation and procedural due process claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983, as well as state-law claims alleging breach of implied employment contracts, civil conspiracy, and a violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act.

After the action was removed to federal court and several claims were dismissed, only the First Amendment retaliation and implied contract claims against the township remained. The district court granted summary judgment to the township.

The district court found that the employees had not connected their campaign activity to the abolition of their positions. Their theory that the incoming supervisor must have assumed they supported the opposing party rested on conjecture. They also failed to overcome evidence that dissatisfaction with the center’s management and the overlap between their responsibilities prompted the restructuring. The employees appealed only the First Amendment ruling.

Required showing. Citing Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, 679 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2012), the Seventh Circuit explained that a public employee asserting First Amendment retaliation must establish constitutionally protected activity, a deprivation likely to deter such activity, and evidence that the protected conduct was at least a motivating factor in the employer’s action.

The township conceded that the employees’ campaign work was constitutionally protected and that eliminating their positions constituted an adverse action. The appeal, therefore, turned on whether the political activity motivated the township’s decision.

Relying on McGreal v. Village of Orland Park, 850 F.3d 308 (7th Cir. 2017), and Minocqua Brewing Co. v. Hess, 160 F.4th 849 (7th Cir. 2025), the court described the applicable burden-shifting framework. Once employees show that protected speech was a motivating factor, the government employer may avoid liability by establishing that it would have taken the same action without the protected conduct. The employees may then show that the stated justification was pretextual and that retaliation was the true motivation.

Timing insufficient. The employees relied principally on the timing of the restructuring, which occurred one day after the new officials took office. They argued that the temporal proximity between the campaign and the elimination of their positions supported an inference of retaliation.

However, Kidwell established that suspicious timing is “rarely” sufficient by itself to prove causation. Temporal proximity can support an inference of retaliation only when the adverse action follows closely after the protected conduct and the decisionmaker knew about that conduct.

Citing Lalvani v. Cook County, 269 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2001), the Seventh Circuit emphasized that an employer could not retaliate for political activity of which it was unaware. The employees offered no evidence that the incoming supervisor or trustees knew they had attended fundraisers, prepared campaign materials, or distributed literature.

The workers relied on Greene v. Doruff, 660 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2011), in which suspicious timing combined with a “threadbare” explanation supported an inference of retaliation. But the township’s explanation here was supported by evidence that the incoming supervisor had questioned the center’s management years before the election.

Independent reasons. Even if the incoming officials knew about the campaigning, the township established that it would have undertaken the same restructuring. The supervisor’s concerns predated the employees’ political activity, and changing the senior center’s operations was one of his reasons for seeking office.

The employees asserted that the township’s justification had shifted during the litigation, but the record did not substantiate that contention. Nor did they provide evidence that the restructuring explanation was dishonest.

The promotion of their Republican-supporting manager and retention of another campaign participant further undermined their theory of partisan retaliation. Because the employees neither established that their campaigning motivated the restructuring nor rebutted the township’s same-decision showing, the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment.

The case is No. 24-3325.

Judge: Ripple, K.

Attorneys: Charles A. Johnson (Law Offices of Charles A. Johnson) for Maureen Fox and Lynne Woodard. Karin L. Anderson (IFMK Law) for DuPage Township, Gary Marschke and Jacqueline Traynere.

Companies: DuPage Township

Cases: IndividualRights ContractClaims Discharge PublicEmployees Retaliation StateLawClaims IllinoisNews IndianaNews WisconsinNews