Email

Recent Court Decisions

Recent court and agency decisions involving board work

IASB's Office of General Counsel prepares summaries chosen from the Illinois Supreme and Appellate courts, federal court, agencies, the Illinois Public Access Counselor, and other tribunals issuing interesting decisions. Information in the summaries is limited to a brief synopsis and is not intended for purposes of legal advice. For the complete text of any case cited in this section, go to the Illinois state courts, Illinois Attorney General, or Federal courts finder links.

To search by the names of the plaintiff or defendant or other keyword, use the site search box located at the top of this website. Then filter results by Court Decision.

Questions regarding Recent Court and Agency Decisions should be directed to Maryam Brotine, ext. 1219, or by mbrotine@iasb.com.

Court decisions are listed in order of the date posted, with the most recent shown first.
Reset Filter
  • Freedom of Information Act - FOIA
    Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
    Case: Public Access Opinion 24-002
    Decision Date: Friday, February 9, 2024
    On November 29, 2023, Petitioner, on behalf of WGN-TV, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Village of Dolton (Village) seeking copies of documents sufficient to show total payments to the Mayor in 2023, a copy of the current lease for the Mayor’s Village vehicle, and copies of monthly statements for any and all Village credit cards from June 1, 2023 to present. The Village did not respond.

    On December 14, 2023, Petitioner sent an email forwarding his request to the Village Administrator, copying the Village Clerk, an attorney in private practice who represents the Village, and a colleague at WGN-TV, stating the request was “past due.” The Village did not respond, and Petitioner submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Counselor (PAC) alleging that the Village failed to respond to his FOIA request.

    On December 27, 2023, the PAC forwarded a copy of the Request for Review to the Village’s FOIA officer along with a letter asking whether the Village had responded to Petitioner’s FOIA request. The Village did not respond. On January 11, 2024, the PAC sent another letter via to the Village’s FOIA Officer, but again the Village did not respond. On January 29, 2024, Petitioner contacted the PAC indicating he still had not received a response to the November 29, 2023 FOIA request.

    On January 30, 2024, the Village e-mailed Petitioner a letter, dated January 17, 2024, asserting that the Village had located five pages of records responsive to his request, and asserting that those pages were attached to the letter. There were no records attached to the email. Petitioner responded to that email, alerting the Village to the absence of the records and inquiring how copies of all requested documents could total only five pages. The Village acknowledged receipt of that email but did not provide Petitioner with the five pages of records, or any records.

    Section 3(d) of FOIA provides that “each public body shall, promptly, either comply with or deny a request for public records within 5 business days after its receipt of the request, unless the time for response is properly extended under subsection (e) of this Section.” The PAC concluded that the Village violated Section 3(d) of FOIA by failing to comply with, deny in while or in part, or otherwise appropriately respond to a FOIA request. The PAC directed the Village to take immediate and appropriate action to provide Petitioner with copies of all records responsive to his request, subject only to permissible redactions, if any, under Section 7 of FOIA.

    This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

    Mary H. Bandstra, IASB Law Clerk
    On November 29, 2023, Petitioner, on behalf of WGN-TV, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Village of Dolton (Village) seeking copies of documents sufficient to show total payments to the Mayor in 2023, a copy of the current lease for the Mayor’s Village vehicle, and copies of monthly statements for any and all Village credit cards from June 1, 2023 to present. The Village did not respond.

    On December 14, 2023, Petitioner sent an email forwarding his request to the Village Administrator, copying the Village Clerk, an attorney in private practice who represents the Village, and a colleague at WGN-TV, stating the request was “past due.” The Village did not respond, and Petitioner submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Counselor (PAC) alleging that the Village failed to respond to his FOIA request.

    On December 27, 2023, the PAC forwarded a copy of the Request for Review to the Village’s FOIA officer along with a letter asking whether the Village had responded to Petitioner’s FOIA request. The Village did not respond. On January 11, 2024, the PAC sent another letter via to the Village’s FOIA Officer, but again the Village did not respond. On January 29, 2024, Petitioner contacted the PAC indicating he still had not received a response to the November 29, 2023 FOIA request.

    On January 30, 2024, the Village e-mailed Petitioner a letter, dated January 17, 2024, asserting that the Village had located five pages of records responsive to his request, and asserting that those pages were attached to the letter. There were no records attached to the email. Petitioner responded to that email, alerting the Village to the absence of the records and inquiring how copies of all requested documents could total only five pages. The Village acknowledged receipt of that email but did not provide Petitioner with the five pages of records, or any records.

    Section 3(d) of FOIA provides that “each public body shall, promptly, either comply with or deny a request for public records within 5 business days after its receipt of the request, unless the time for response is properly extended under subsection (e) of this Section.” The PAC concluded that the Village violated Section 3(d) of FOIA by failing to comply with, deny in while or in part, or otherwise appropriately respond to a FOIA request. The PAC directed the Village to take immediate and appropriate action to provide Petitioner with copies of all records responsive to his request, subject only to permissible redactions, if any, under Section 7 of FOIA.

    This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

    Mary H. Bandstra, IASB Law Clerk
     
  • Open Meetings Act - OMA
    Improper Closed Session Discussion of Removing Book from Curriculum
    Case: Public Access Opinion 23-016
    Decision Date: Wednesday, December 27, 2023
    On September 28, 2023, Requestor submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Counselor (PAC) alleging that on August 7, 2023, the Board of Education of Yorkville Community Unit School District 115 (Board) improperly discussed, in closed session, removing the book Just Mercy from a course curriculum.

    Section 2(a) of OMA requires that all meetings of public bodies be open to the public unless the subject of the meeting is covered by one of the exceptions set forth in Section 2(c) of OMA. The Board argued that its closed session discussion of Just Mercy was proper under the exceptions in Sections 2(c)(1), 2(c)(4), and 2(c)(10) of OMA. The PAC reviewed each of these closed session exceptions in turn.

    Section 2(c)(1) of OMA permits closed session discussion of the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees. The Board argued that it was discussing a complaint filed against three specific employees. The Board acknowledged that much of its discussion centered around the appropriateness of the book but asserted that the purpose was to resolve the complaint against specific employees. After reviewing the verbatim recording of the closed session, the PAC disagreed with the Board’s assertion and found it “abundantly clear” that the discussion occurred to make a curriculum decision about the book.

    Section 2(c)(4) of OMA permits evidence or testimony to be presented in a closed session hearing to a quasi-adjudicatory body when specifically authorized by law. The Board argued that it acts as a quasi-adjudicatory body and is required to provide due process to individuals in multiple scenarios, including but not limited to: the suspension or expulsion of pupils, the removal or dismissal of tenured teachers, and student residency disputes. In this case, however, the PAC found that the Board had not identified any specific statutory basis in the School Code for it to act as a quasi-adjudicatory body regarding removal of a book from a course curriculum. Moreover, the PAC noted that within the first few minutes of the closed session discussion, Board members acknowledged that they were there to make a curriculum decision about Just Mercy.

    Section 2(c)(10) of OMA permits closed session discussion of the placement of individual students in special education programs and other matters related to individual students. The Board argued that Section 2(c)(10) applied because a parent’s complaint alleged the use of Just Mercy created an unsafe learning environment for their child, and it was impossible to discuss the curriculum without referring to the student at issue. The PAC, however, found that during closed session the Board only momentarily alluded to an individual student during its discussion.

    Since Sections 2(c)(1), 2(c)(4), and 2(c)(10) did not apply, the PAC found that the Board violated OMA. The PAC ordered the Board to disclose to Requestor, and make publicly available, the closed session verbatim recording from its August 7, 2023 meeting. The Board was also ordered to revise its August 7, 2023 closed session minutes to provide a meaningful summary of all matters proposed, deliberated, or decided, and to also disclose the revised minutes to Requestor and make them publicly available.

    This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.
     
  • Open Meetings Act - OMA
    Vote to Approve Closed Session Minutes Must Occur in Open Session
    Case: Public Access Opinion 23-014
    Decision Date: Friday, December 1, 2023
    On October 4, 2023, Requestor submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Counselor (PAC) alleging that the Village of Skokie Board of Trustees (Board) violated section 2(e) of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by approving the closed session minutes from the June 5, 2023 meeting in closed session during its October 2, 2023 meeting.

    Section 2(e) of OMA states that “no final action may be taken at a closed meeting” and that “final action shall be preceded by a public recital” sufficient to inform the public about the business being conducted.

    On review, the PAC noted that the plain language of Section 2(e) indicates that a final vote may not be taken in closed session. Instead, the Board may discuss whether to approve the minutes in closed session and vote in open session, or take a preliminary vote in closed session and a final vote in open session. Further, adequate recital during open session only requires making a motion to approve the closed session minutes of a meeting held on a particular date and does not require revealing details of the underlying matters discussed.

    The PAC found that the Board violated Section 2(e) of OMA. The PAC ordered the Board to include the approval of the June 5, 2023 closed session minutes on the agenda for the next regular meeting and provide the public with adequate recital before voting on the approval of those minutes.

    This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

    Michelle Yang, IASB Law Clerk
     
  • General Interest to School Officials
    Avoiding Pension Contributions by Capping Salary Increases for Teachers Over Age 45 is Prohibited Age Discrimination
    Case: Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Urbana Sch. Dist. No. 116, 18-cv-2212 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 7, 2023)
    Decision Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023

    In 2005, the Illinois General Assembly made amendments to the Illinois Pension Code. One amendment requires additional employer contributions to the Teacher’s Retirement System (TRS), Illinois’s public-school teacher pension plan, under certain conditions if the teacher’s salary increases more than 6% over the previous year.

    Under the TRS, pension payments depend on the “final average salary,” which is the average of the four highest consecutive salary years over the teacher’s final ten years before retirement. The amendment specifies that for any year used to determine the final average salary, if the teacher’s salary increased more than 6% from the previous year, the employer must contribute the present value of the increase in benefits resulting from the salary increase.

    In 2007, the Urbana School District No. 116 (District) and the Urbana Education Association (Union) ratified a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The agreement included a provision limiting increases in “creditable earnings” to 6% for teachers within 10 years of retirement eligibility. Creditable earnings are defined as all wages, including salary and supplemental pay. Similar provisions were included in later CBAs until it was removed in the CBA ratified in 2020.

    The District enforced the CBA provision by tracking creditable earnings for teachers over age 45 with more than one year of service. Notably, the District did not track the teachers’ hire dates, years of service, or when they would retire.

    In August 2018, the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC) sued on behalf of several teachers whose salaries or supplemental pay was reduced due to the District’s enforcement of the CBA provision. The EEOC claimed that the District’s method of enforcement violated Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) by limiting salary increases based on age. 

    While the District claimed enforcement of the CBA provision based on a teacher’s years of service, the court held that the District discriminated by age. The District’s method of enforcement drew a line at age 45, so a 46-year-old teacher and a 44-year-old teacher with identical credentials and experience were not entitled to identical annual increases in pay.

    Furthermore, the court held that the District did not have an affirmative defense of “identified practice or policy based on a reasonable factor other than age,” commonly referred to as RFOA. The court notes that the RFOA is not available as a defense to a claim of disparate treatment. In addition, federal regulation explicitly states that the ADEA does not excuse the payment of lower wages or salary to older employees on account of age.

    The court granted the EEOC’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the District discriminated by age. The court also awarded back pay to the teachers whose earnings were reduced due to the District’s practices, subject to a final accounting of appropriate back pay.

    Michelle Yang, IASB Law Clerk
     

  • Open Meetings Act - OMA
    Restriction of Public Comment Limited to Established and Recorded Rules
    Case: Public Access Opinion 23-013
    Decision Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023
    On June 16, 2023, Requestor submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Counselor) PAC alleging that the Board of Education of Wheaton Warrenville Community Unit School District No. 200 (“Board”) had violated Section 2.06(g) of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) during its June 14, 2023 meeting by restricting public comment without authorization from established and recorded rules.

    During the June 14, 2023 meeting, Requestor was interrupted while addressing the Board during the period for public comment after she referenced a district hiring policy. The Board stated that personnel issues must be discussed one-on-one with the board and not during the period for public comment. This was noted in the annotated agenda but not in the Board’s formally adopted policy manual.

    Section 2.06(g) of OMA provides that “any person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body.”

    On review, the PAC noted that the plain language of Section 2.06(g) required that policies be established and recorded. The PAC found that the annotated agenda was not formally adopted, so it was not established and recorded. While the policy manual was formally adopted, it did not include any policy regarding personnel issues. Enforcing a restriction on personnel issues that was not established and recorded went against Section 2.06(g).

    The PAC ordered the Board to refrain from applying unestablished and unrecorded rules to restrict public comment at future meetings and conduct its future meetings in full compliance with OMA.

    This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

    Michelle Yang, IASB Law Clerk