# Auriemma v. Rice

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · August 20, 1990 · 910 F.2d 1449

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8981635

## Case

- **Full name:** John AURIEMMA, Daniel Coll, Marshall Consadine, Renaldo Cozzi, Kenneth Curin, Russell Ditusa, Thomas Faragoi, Lawrence Forberg, John Hinchy, Kathryn Kajari, George Marcin, Patrick McDonough, Walter Murphy, John Rafter, Dominic Rizzi, James Stampnick, Thomas Walton, and Roger Whalen v. Fred RICE, and City of Chicago
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** August 20, 1990
- **Citations:** 910 F.2d 1449; 1990 WL 119549
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bauer
- **Judges:** Bauer, Coffey, Cudahy, Cummings, Easterbrook, Flaum, Kanne, Manion, Posner, Ripple, Wood
- **Cited by:** 121 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8981635

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[i]t must ... be a matter of public concern if a group of public employees is allegedly harassed and penalized by supervisors for seeking redress in our federal court system because of their public objection to the alleged racial basis of the [CPD] reorganization…
- holding that “[n]o reasonable police chief could have objectively and reasonably concluded” that he could discriminate against his subordinates based upon race without violating their constitutional rights
- holding that “[n]o reasonable police chief could have objectively and reasonably concluded” that he or she could discriminate against his or her subordinates based upon race without violating their rights
- holding that “no reasonable police chief” would believe that he could constitutionally promote or demote police on racial grounds

## Opinion text

BAUER, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I join Judge Flaum’s dissent and write only to suggest that the analysis in Judge Cudahy’s dissent does not represent my view of the matter. The dimensions of the problem which my Brother Cudahy thinks may have escaped the attention of the majority and minority on the issue are ones I frankly prefer to miss. I do not believe that a recognition of a “white” or “black” party by a judicial decision is necessary, nor do I think that it is true.
I think it unfortunate that voting proceeds along racial lines all too frequently, but voting has frequently been based on ethnic appeals; I don’t doubt that people have voted for Irish candidates, Italian candidates and German or Polish candidates just because of that national identity (or voted against such candidates for the same reason). But that has not prompted the courts or law to recognize an “Irish” party or “Polish” party and designate one or the other as the winner or loser and ascribe the party patronage policy to be based on the ethnic identity of the winner.
The candidates were all members of organized and recognized political parties; indeed, the successful candidates for mayor, black and white, were all members of exactly the same party.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8981635. Public record. Not legal advice.