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
    Letter from requestor to mayor not public record under FOIA
    Case: Shehadeh v. City of Taylorville, 2024 IL App (5th) 220824-U
    Decision Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2024
    On March 4, 2022, Plaintiff sent a letter to the mayor of the City of Taylorville (City) complaining about the city attorney’s conduct in a pending lawsuit between Plaintiff and the City. The letter included a request for a copy of the letter under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The City’s FOIA officer denied the request, indicating that the letter constituted “an improper and illegal attempted communication” between the representatives of the City in the pending litigation rather than a genuine FOIA request. After filing a complaint alleging that the City violated FOIA, Plaintiff explained that his request was intended to be confirmation that his letter was received and made part of the public record.

    The trial court found no FOIA violation, holding that requests which merely ask for a copy of the request back violated the spirit of FOIA. The appellate court affirmed. While the purpose of FOIA is to make public records open to public scrutiny, the appellate court noted two important limitations: (1) the requested material must relate to the transaction of public business, and (2) the record must have been prepared or received by or be under the possession or control of a public body.

    First, the court held that Plaintiff’s FOIA request contained only complaints about the city attorney and did not pertain to public business. Second, the court held that the mayor was not a “public body.” FOIA explicitly distinguishes between a “public body” and the “head of public body,” such as a mayor. Therefore, Plaintiff’s letter was not a public record that must be disclosed under FOIA. The court also noted that FOIA is intended to provide the public with access to information, and returning a copy of the letter did not further the purpose of FOIA.

    While this case does not involve education law, the limitations of what may be requested under FOIA are relevant for school boards.

    Michelle Yang, IASB Law Clerk
     
  • Administrator Contracts
    Attorney-client privilege may protect from FOIA disclosure
    Case: Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters Loc. 4646 v. Vill. of Oak Brook, 2024 IL App (3d) 220466
    Decision Date: Wednesday, January 3, 2024
    On December 8, 2020, the Village of Oak Brook (Village) conducted a public hearing for its 2021 budget. During that meeting, the Village entered closed session for almost three hours to discuss a proposal that included breaching a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 4646 (Union). The Village’s regular attorney and its labor counsel attended the closed session.

    The Union brought suit against the Village, alleging that the Village violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) for improperly entering closed session and that the Village violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for failing to provide transcripts and recordings when requested.

    The trial court granted summary judgment for the Union, holding that the Village violated both OMA and FOIA. In addition, the trial court denied the Village’s request to redact closed sessions records that contained attorney-client privileged communications. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the OMA and FOIA violations, but it held that the Village may be permitted to redact privileged communications from the record.

    The Village claimed that Section 2(c)(2) of OMA, allowing closed session to discuss collective negotiating matters, and Section 2(c)(11), allowing closed session to discuss probable or imminent litigation. applied. The Village argued that the closed session involved adopting a budget that would breach the CBA, and breaching the CBA would likely lead to litigation.

    The appellate court held that neither Sections 2(c)(2) nor 2(c)(11) applied. The court noted that there were no active negotiations with the Union. Section 2(c)(2) only allows closed sessions to discuss matters related to an active negotiation, not an anticipated or hypothetical negotiation. Similarly, Section 2(c)(11)’s “probable or imminent litigation” requires that there are reasonable grounds to believe that litigation is more likely than not. The court noted that when the Village entered closed session, it had not yet decided to breach the CBA.

    Since the Village improperly entered closed session under OMA, it was obligated to provide transcripts and recordings when requested under FOIA. While neither OMA nor FOIA has explicit exceptions for attorney-client privilege, both specify that the trial court has discretion to order the production of improperly withheld public records. The appellate court noted that privileged communications are generally not subject to disclosure in discovery and it extended that general principle to hold that the trial court was not required to compel disclosure of privileged communications under FOIA. The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether the Village met its burden of proving any of its communications were exempt under FOIA.

    While this case is not specific to education law, the holdings regarding closed session under OMA and required disclosures under FOIA are applicable to school boards.

    Michelle Yang, IASB Law Clerk
     
  • Open Meetings Act - OMA
    Taking Final Action in Closed Session
    Case: Public Access Opinion 24-003
    Decision Date: Friday, March 1, 2024
    On January 9, 2024, Requestor submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Counselor (PAC) alleging that at its October 16, 2023 meeting, the Evanston City Council (City) improperly took final action during closed session to authorize an exclusive representation agreement with Jones Lang LaSalle Midwest, LLC (JLL).

    On January 19, 2024, the PAC contacted City, requesting a detailed written answer to the allegations along with unredacted copies of City’s October 16, 2023 closed session minutes and verbatim recording. The evidence showed that in closed session on October 16, 2023, the City Manager asked City to authorize an exclusive representation agreement with JLL in order for City to execute the agreement with JLL. Members were polled and a majority approved execution of the agreement with JLL. Then, still in closed session, the City’s Mayor stated that City staff had been directed to execute the agreement. Upon returning to open session, City voted to adjourn the meeting without taking final action on the exclusive agreement.

    City claimed that the City Manager executed the contract on his own and that it was not subject to final action because the contract was less than $25,000. However, the closed session verbatim recording showed that City Manager expressly sought and obtained City’s approval to enter the agreement. In addition, Section 2(e) of OMA does not limit the requirement that public bodies take final action openly to those final actions that concern expenditures of a certain amount.

    The PAC concluded that City violated section 2(e) of OMA by taking final action during the closed session of its October 16, 2023 meeting. The PAC directed City to reconsider and take final action on the exclusive representation agreement with JLL in the open session of meeting after sufficient public recital in accordance with Section 2(e) of OMA.

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