A federal appeals court has ruled that the village of Melrose Park had every right to terminate a firefighter for failing to meet its residency requirements, rejecting the firefighter’s claim that his dismissal violated his due process rights.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago upheld the dismissal of due process and equal protection claims brought by John Cannici, a former firefighter in Melrose Park. He was fired after the village found he wasn’t living in the area full-time. The three-judge panel confirmed that the village followed proper procedures before his termination.
According to the village’s code, all officers and employees must be residents of Melrose Park unless exempted. This rule applied to Cannici, who was fired for not complying with the residency requirement.
The court noted that Melrose Park provided exactly what Illinois law requires in cases of just-cause termination: written charges, a formal hearing, and an opportunity to present evidence. These steps were taken before Cannici was let go.
Cannici lived in Melrose Park until 2008, when he moved to Orland Park, where his wife and two children resided. While on duty, he stayed in Melrose Park, but spent weekends with his family in Orland Park—this arrangement, according to the village's Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, violated the residency rules.
The judges did not agree with Cannici’s argument that the review process deprived him of a protected interest or violated his equal protection rights. They emphasized that the village had followed all necessary legal procedures.
“In fact,†wrote Judge William J. Bauer in the decision, “Cannici’s attorney pointed out that a state court judge had already ruled in his favor on the administrative review issue and had paused further proceedings until this court made its decision. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that Cannici’s due process rights were violated.â€
The court also referenced a Supreme Court ruling that states the Equal Protection Clause has never been invoked in situations like this, where government employers make individualized personnel decisions that appear arbitrary or irrational.
As a result, the court concluded that Cannici’s equal protection argument didn’t hold up under scrutiny.