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
  • General Interest to School Officials
    Factual Dispute Over Tenured Teacher Dismissal Prevents Summary Judgment for School District
    Case: Wagner v. Bd. of Educ. of North Shore Sch. Dist. 112, 2023 IL App (2d) 220277
    Decision Date: Thursday, March 16, 2023
    Plaintiff Bryan Wagner was a tenured teacher employed by North Shore School District 112 (“District”) when, in June 2020, he was arrested for a domestic dispute at his home. Though the criminal charges against Wagner were dropped in November 2020, in the interim the District conducted an investigation into his arrest. Wagner denied engaging in domestic violence, but the District determined that he lied during the investigation and had engaged in domestic violence. On August 19, 2020, the District sent Wagner a notice of recommendation for dismissal and suspension without pay. In September 2020, the District passed a formal resolution to dismiss Wagner from his employment. Wagner alleged that the resolution was purely based on his arrest record, while the District claimed it was based on an exercise of discretion after balancing Wagner’s interests in continued employment against the impact of his conduct on the school environment.

    Wagner made a timely written request for a dismissal hearing. A two-day dismissal hearing took place on September 2, and October 21, 2021, and the evidence showed that Wagner had not committed a domestic battery or any other crimes in June 2020. The hearing officer concluded that the District did not have irremediable cause to dismiss Wagner and recommended that he be reinstated. Regardless, the District approved a final resolution and order dismissing Wagner from employment.

    Wagner filed a complaint with the Ill. Dept. of Human Rights alleging employment discrimination based on an arrest record in violation of the Ill. Human Rights Act (IHRA), and the complaint was permitted to proceed to state court. The District filed a motion to dismiss Wagner’s complaint, arguing that he was not discharged based on his arrest record but based on “other information” allowed under the IHRA showing Wagner actually engaged in the conduct for which he was arrested – meaning that certain allegations in Wagner’s complaint were false. The District also argued that Wagner’s complaint was barred by various sections of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (TIA), which grants immunity to public entity employees and employers for policy determinations involving the exercise of discretionary authority and for injuries caused by prosecuting an administrative proceeding within the scope of the employee’s role unless they act maliciously and without cause. The trial court denied dismissal based on “other information” under the IHRA, but found that the District’s employees, and thus the District, were immune from liability under the TIA. The trial court granted summary judgment for the District.

    Wagner appealed, arguing that the trial court’s dismissal was legally improper because it was not based on the facts alleged in Wagner’s complaint. The appellate court agreed with Wagner, finding that the District had attempted to present facts that differed from those set forth in Wagner’s complaint. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case back to the trial court to determine: 1) whether Wagner actually engaged in the conduct that led to his arrest, and 2) whether the decision to fire him was an exercise of discretion and a balancing of competing interests or whether it was based solely on his arrest record.

    Michelle Yang, IASB Law Clerk
     
  • Open Meetings Act - OMA
    Public Library Board Private “Meet and Greet” Gathering Violated OMA
    Case: Public Access Opinion 23-003
    Decision Date: Tuesday, March 14, 2023
    On December 21, 2022, a Trustee submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Bureau alleging that the Board of Trustees for the Stickney-Forest View Public Library (Board) violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by holding a gathering in which library issues were discussed without adhering to the advance notice requirements of OMA.

    The gathering in question was a “meet and greet” hosted by the Board President on November 28, 2022. The gathering was listed as an informal gathering where library staff and trustees could meet, get to know each other, and ask questions or state any concerns the staff had. Participants could engage in person or via Zoom.

    Three members of the Board were physically present at the “meet and greet.” At the meeting, staff members asked board members substantive questions regarding library operations and Board practices.

    Section 1.02 of OMA defines a “meeting” as “any gathering of a majority of a quorum of the members of a public body held for the purpose of discussing public business[.]” The full Board consists of seven members. Accordingly, four Board members constitute a quorum and three members are a majority of the quorum.

    During the November 28, 2022 gathering, the three board members engaged in an interactive discussion with Library District staff about matters of public business upon which the Board may take action in the future. Because discussions of public business for the purpose of collecting information are the collective inquiry of the deliberative process, the November 28, 2022, gathering constituted a “meeting” subject to the requirements of OMA.

    The Public Access Counselor (PAC) concluded that the Board violated OMA by holding a meeting on November 28, 2022, without providing advance public notice or complying with the other requirements of OMA. The PAC directed the Board to make the video recording of its November 28, 2022 gathering publicly available and to generate and approve written minutes for the meeting. The PAC further directed the Board to ensure that future gatherings in which three or more of its members engage in deliberative discussions of public business are held in full compliance with the requirements of OMA.

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

    Mary H. Bandstra, IASB Law Clerk
     
  • Freedom of Information Act - FOIA
    Employee survey results used for performance evaluation exempt from FOIA disclosure under Sec. 7(1)(f)
    Case: Public Access Opinion 23-002
    Decision Date: Thursday, January 26, 2023
    On September 20, 2022, Requestor submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA) seeking copies of the written answers provided in response to the most recent Gallup survey administered at the school and the interpretation of the written responses by IMSA’s Board.

    The survey consisted of twelve 5-point scale questions, two Gallup Ladder questions, and three free response questions. The survey was intended to understand how IMSA employees felt about their work and why they felt the way they did. In addition, IMSA used the free response questions (but not the rest of the survey) to evaluate the principal’s performance.

    In response to the FOIA request, IMSA released the results of the 5-point scale and ladder questions but withheld the written responses, claiming an exception under Section 7(1)(f). On October 14, 2022, Requestor submitted a Request for Review to the PAC disputing IMSA’s partial denial.

    Section 7(1)(f) exempts from disclosure “preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, memoranda and other records in which opinions are expressed, or policies or actions are formulated.”

    On review, the PAC found that the written responses (1) expressed the employees’ opinions and (2) were used in IMSA’s pre-decisional, deliberative process of evaluating the principal’s performance. The PAC held that the written responses were exempt from disclosure pursuant to Section 7(1)(f) of FOIA, and IMSA was not obligated to release the written responses.

    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
    Withholding Union Dues From Union Member Paycheck is Not a Violation of First Amendment Rights
    Case: Adriana Ramon Baro v. Lake County Federation of Teachers Local 504, 57 F.4th 582 (7th Cir. 2023)
    Decision Date: Friday, January 6, 2023
    On January 6, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Court) issued its decision in Adriana Ramon Baro v. Lake County Federation of Teachers Local 504 (Ramon Baro), holding that withholding of union dues to which a union member has voluntarily consented is not a violation of First Amendment rights.

    Petitioner signed a contract for union membership at orientation to her teaching position. Several days later when she learned that union membership was not mandatory, she sent letters to the school district (District) and the union, trying to revoke her membership. The union informed her she would need to wait until the following August – the published membership revocation time – to revoke her membership. Union dues were withdrawn from her paychecks. Petitioner filed this lawsuit. The union then sent Petitioner a letter confirming that she was no longer a union member and reimbursing all paid dues plus legal fees with a check. The District halted withdrawing her dues the same day. Petitioner returned the check and continued pursuing legal action. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Petitioner appealed.

    The Court’s decision builds on the 2018 Mark Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al., 535 (Janus), case in which the United States Supreme Court found that “fair share fees” paid by nonunion members to unions are unconstitutional.

    The Court found that Janus does not apply to union members who voluntarily signed union membership contracts. “…[Petitioner] voluntarily signed a valid contract, became a union member, and accepted the terms and conditions of union membership. Accordingly… Janus – a case about the First Amendment rights of employees who choose not to join unions – does not apply to [Petitioner].” 

    Additionally, the Court found that ordinary contract principles apply when interpreting union membership contracts. “Illinois follows the objective theory of intent, whereby the court looks first to the written agreement and not to the parties’ subjective understandings.” The Court found that the objective intent of the parties was clear from the face of the membership agreement. Petitioner’s belief that the contract was mandatory is irrelevant.

    The Court concluded by stating that “[T]he First Amendment protects our right to speak. It does not create an independent right to void obligations when we are unhappy with what we have said.”

    Mary H. Bandstra, IASB Law Clerk


     
  • Freedom of Information Act - FOIA
    Failure to Respond to FOIA Request Violates Section 3(d) of FOIA
    Case: Public Access Opinion 23-001
    Decision Date: Thursday, January 12, 2023
    On August 12, 2022, Requestor submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Proviso Township High School District 209 (District) seeking any records relating to staffing levels for teachers in school year 2023. The District did not respond to the request. At the District’s Board of Education (Board) meeting on September 13, 2022 the District acknowledged having received Requestor’s FOIA request in its FOIA report to the Board, stating that “information will be provided”.  

    On October 13 and 14, 2022, Requestor filed a Request for Review with the Public Access Counselor (PAC) in which he alleged that the District had failed to respond to his FOIA request.

    On October 21, 2022, the PAC emailed the District asking if the District had received the request and directing the District to respond to the request and to send a copy of the response to the PAC. On November 15, 2022, The PAC re-sent the October 21, 2022 letter to the District. On November 16, 2022, The PAC sent a letter to the FOIA Officer for the District, explaining that the PAC had not received any indication that the District had responded to Requestor’s request. The District did not respond to PAC correspondence.

    Section 3(a) of FOIA provides that “each public body shall make available to any person for inspection or copying all public records…” Section 3(d) of FOIA further provides, “Each public body shall, promptly, either comply with or deny a request or public records within 5 business days after its receipt of the request… Failure to comply with a written request, extend the time for response, or deny a request within 5 business days after its receipt shall be considered a denial of the request.”

    The PAC found that the District did not respond to Requestor’s August 12, 2022 FOIA request within five business days after its receipt by either complying with the request, extending the time for its response pursuant to section 3(e) of FOIA, or denying the request in writing. The failure of the District to comply with the requisite response procedures violated section 3(d) of FOIA. The PAC ordered the District to take immediate and appropriate action to provide Requestor with all records responsive to his August 12, 2022 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