Seventh Circuit Rules Termination Based on Political Affiliation Was Lawful
As a result of the 2018 midterms, many public offices will be transitioning from one political party to the other. In a timely decision, the Seventh Circuit recently reaffirmed that government entities have the right to discharge employees for political reasons, including political affiliation, in certain circumstances.
The plaintiff, Nicole Bogart, worked for Vermillion County as Financial Resources Director. She reported directly to the Chairman of the County Board. In her position, she provided data to the county Finance department, developed financial plans based on revenues and project plans, and was heavily involved in the creation and control of the county budget. These duties were outlined in a written job description created by the County. Bogart had also drafted a document in which she described her primary duties. Her description matched the majority of the formal job description.
When the Chair went from blue to red, Bogart was later terminated because she was a Democrat. She filed suit and claimed that her termination was based on political reasons in violation of her First Amendment rights. The district court held that she held a high-level policy-sensitive position and could be terminated based on political affiliation. The Seventh Circuit agreed, reiterating that when a government employee is employed in a position that “entails substantial policymaking responsibility, meaningful discretion to implement the policy goals of elected officials, or a need to maintain the confidentiality essential to enabling robust deliberations entailing disagreement and incorporating political objectives,” that employee’s employment can be based on his or her political association.
The opinion is not earth shattering. However, the Court stressed the usefulness of having accurate, updated job descriptions. In fact, the Court held that as long as those job descriptions do not bear “some systematic unreliability” or have been “manipulated in some manner by officials looking to extend their political power, our examination begins and ends there.” In short, Bogart’s case was open and shut based on the accuracy of her job description and her agreement that is was.
Employers should develop job descriptions that encompass essential job functions. Like the County did here, get the employee’s buy in as to the accuracy of the description. Thereafter, don’t forget about them. Routinely audit the descriptions to ensure they remain complete and accurate. They may help in many situations, such as identifying essential job functions as part of the Americans with Disabilities Act interactive process, defense of an ADA or FMLA claim, or, as here, establishing whether the position was at a level where politics truly matter.
Featured Insights

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”

