Chan V. Wodnicki, 123 F. 3d 1005 (7th Cir. 1998), Case Study Example

Title and Citation: Chan v. Wodnicki, 123 F. 3d 1005 (7th Cir. 1998)

Type of Action: Mr. Cory D. Chan, a police officer with the Chicago Police Department filed a civil suit against the Chicago Police Department, the City of Chicago, and his superior as well as Deputy Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department, Mr. Edward S. Wodnicki for wrongful transfer to another division, revocation of security clearance, and economic and reputationa; harm. Prior to trial, the district court dismissed the action against the Chicago Police Department and the City of Chicago, leaving Mr. Wodnicki as the only remaining defendant.

Facts of the Case: From 1985 to 1989, Mr. Chan was assigned to a multi-jurisdictional unit, the Chicago Terrorist Task Force (CTTF) due to which he had a “top secret” security clearance from the federal government. In 1989, Mr. Chan received a subpoena to appear before a grand jury. Mr. Chan assumed that the jury was investigating illegal activity in the Chinatown section of the city and invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. When Mr. Chan informed his superiors Fifth Amendment, Deputy Superintendent Wodnicki transferred Mr. Chan to another division and his security clearance was revoked.

The union filed grievance on Mr. Chan’s behalf and the arbitrator ruled in Mr. Chan’s favor but the arbitrator didn’t have the authority to reinstate Mr. Chan to CTTF. Mr. Chan was renominated to the CTTF but his security clearance had not approved by the time he filed complaint in the District Court. The Jury returned verdict for Mr. Chan and awarded him financial compensation and the district court granted Deputy Superintendent Mr. Wodnicki’s motion for judgment. Mr. Chan appealed the decision and Deputy Superintendent Mr. Wodnicki cross-appealed.

Contentions of the Parties: Mr. Chan contends that the questions asked by grand jury were not related to his official duties as a police officer. In addition, Mr. Chan claims that he was not advised that his answers would not be used against him in a criminal context. Mr. Wodnicki claims that he didn’t know why Mr. Chan asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege and in addition, he had no knowledge of the subject of grand jury’s investigation. Moreover, Mr. Wodnicki considered Mr. Chan a security risk and he was told that FBI was going to revoke Mr. Chan’s security clearance and didn’t want Mr. Chan in the CTTF anymore.

Issue(s): Whether the transfer constituted a burden sufficiently grave to constitute an infringement on Mr. Chan’s Fifth Amendment rights?

Decision: The United States Court of Appeals reasoned that Mr. Chan lost no rank or pay and the district court was correct to grant judgment to Mr. Wodnicki on the ground of qualified immunity. Thus, Mr. Wodnicki won the case.

Reasoning: The court said that government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct doesn’t violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. The court explained that the threat of a job loss is a sufficient threat for immunity from prosecution and in this case, Mr. Chan didn’t lose any pay or rank. The burden was on Mr. Chan to prove his case and he failed to do so.

Rule of Law: Government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages unless their actions violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of an individual.