Recent Court Decisions

The Illinois Appellate Court for the 1st District (Court) considered an appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County (Circuit Court) and found that a school district properly determined that a student was not a legal resident of the district.
 
During the 2017-2018 school year, M.G. was enrolled as a 7th grade student in the District and her address was listed at a large two-story building located a few blocks from the school. The building had commercial space on the first floor and residential apartments on the second floor. School officials questioned M.G.’s residency after viewing the lease provided as proof of residency, because it was a lease from the family to itself for 10 years with no change in rent. Using software designed to identify students with potential residency issues, the District identified that the family owned two properties: one within the District and one outside of it. Since the student’s residency was potentially suspect, the District authorized an Investigator to dig deeper. The Investigator conducted surveillance at the out-of-District residence for five days, taking notes and photos of the family (including the student) leaving and entering the residence throughout the day and remaining late into the evening when he left. Early the next morning, Investigator observed the family leave the out-of-District residence. Investigator spot checked the in-District residence but didn’t see any of the family’s vehicles there. Later, Investigator saw the student being dropped off at a market near the school but not at the school itself. Investigator speculated this was done to avoid suspicion because a student who actually lived a few blocks from school wouldn’t need to be dropped off. After reviewing Investigator’s report, the District issued a letter to the family stating M.G. was not a resident and requesting that the family meet with the Superintendent. The letter also informed the family that if, after the meeting, they disagreed with the District’s determination then they could request a residency hearing before the Board. The family met with the District, and then the District convened a residency hearing a few weeks later.
 
At the residency hearing, the family acknowledged they owned two buildings, one out-of-District and one in-District. They testified that they operated a flower business on the first floor of the in-District building and that an apartment on the second floor had been their primary residence since December 2012. The apartment has one bedroom and one bathroom, and the family testified M.G. and her high-school student brother shared the bedroom while parents slept in the family room. They further testified that M.G. was in charge of the family’s laundry but because the apartment had no laundry facilities, she used the laundry facility at the out-of-District house. The family admitted that even though the apartment was their primary residence since December 2012, M.G. had been enrolled in out-of-District schools through the end of the 2015-2016 school year. The District presented its case, including the software reports, Investigator’s report and photos, and registration documents and materials, and asserted that the combined factors led the District to believe M.G. lived outside the District. The hearing officer found the family made a “thin” prima facie case of residence in the District, which then shifted the burden to the District to disprove residency. The District met this burden because their evidence was “both persuasive and voluminous.” The hearing officer felt the family was not credible and, though the District’s evidence wasn’t “wholly conclusive,” it overwhelmingly suggested the family’s primary base of operations to be out-of-District. The hearing officer ordered the District to charge M.G. tuition for the 2017-2018 school year. The Board reviewed the hearing officer’s findings, considered written objections submitted by the family, and then adopted and incorporated the hearing officer’s findings and written decision that M.G. was not a resident. The family appealed to the Regional Superintendent, who upheld the Board’s decision.
 
The family then filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Following a hearing, the Circuit Court affirmed the Regional Superintendent’s decision upholding the Board’s decision. Next, the family appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
 
Because this case involved a mixed question of law and fact, the Court reviewed it to determine if the below decisions were “clearly erroneous,” meaning it asked: are we left with the firm conviction that a mistake has been committed? After a thorough review of Illinois School Code residency provisions and cases, the Court held that the hearing officer’s decision was not clearly erroneous. The family urged the Court to weigh the evidence differently, but the Court emphasized that “it is the responsibility of the Board, not the courts, to weigh the evidence and resolve any conflicts in the evidence.” The Court reasoned that because this was an administrative review case, it was required “to affirm the Board’s determination if there is any component evidence in the record to support it.” The Court held that the District’s process was proper and affirmed its decision that M.G. was not a resident.

The City Council (City Council) of Hillsboro (City) violated Section 2(c)(11) of OMA by improperly using this closed session exception to discuss a matter that “could potentially give rise to litigation” instead of using it for “probable or imminent” litigation.

The Requestor alleged that the City Council improperly entered closed session during its November 24, 2020 meeting to discuss a City sewer main located on the Requestor’s property. The Requestor believed that the City did not have an easement under his parcel of residential property. Suspecting that a lawsuit over the matter was imminent, the City Council cited section 2(c)(11) of OMA to go into closed session to discuss it further.
 
Section 2(c)(11) of OMA states that a public body may hold closed session to consider any “probable or imminent” litigation against it. The PAC referenced several court cases and Attorney General opinions to define “probable or imminent.” The PAC concluded that if no litigation is pending, "there must be reasonable grounds to believe that a lawsuit is more likely than not to be instituted or that such an occurrence is close at hand." The PAC noted that the closed session during the City Council’s meeting did not contain any discussion of “pending, probable, or imminent litigation.” In fact, Requestor’s comments during the open session of the meeting indicated that he wanted to continue to work with the City to resolve the issue.
 
As a result, the PAC determined the City improperly used Section 2(c)(11) and directed the City Council to release the closed session meeting minutes and the verbatim recording of the closed session.
 
This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

The Chicago Police Department (CPD) violated Section 3(g) of FOIA by improperly denying a FOIA request as unduly burdensome without first conferring with the Requestor about possible ways to narrow the request to manageable proportions.

On September 11, 2020, Requestor submitted a FOIA request to CPD, seeking copies of any subpoenas received by CPD from federal law enforcement agencies and any search warrants served on CPD during August of 2020. On the same day, CPD extended its time to respond to Requestor by five business days, as permitted by Section 3(e) of FOIA. On September 25, 2020, CPD responded to Requestor, stating it considered the request to be unduly burdensome under Section 3(g) of FOIA and denying the request. In so doing, CPD stated it didn’t have “any automatic mechanism by which to track, query, or limit a search of subpoena and/or search warrant records categorically” as Requestor sought. CPD then offered Requestor an opportunity to submit a new FOIA request. Three days later Requestor replied to CPD, asking to confer about narrowing his request. By October 2, 2020 Requestor had not heard back from CPD and followed-up via email, again asking to confer about the FOIA request. On October 12, 2020, Requestor submitted a Request for Review to the PAC, alleging that CPD failed to confer with him before denying his request as unduly burdensome.

Section 3(g) of FOIA states that before denying a FOIA request as unduly burdensome “the public body shall extend to the person making the request an opportunity to confer with it in an attempted to reduce the request to manageable proportions.” The PAC interprets the plain meaning of “an opportunity to confer” as a chance to engage in dialogue. Because CPD did not do this, the PAC held that CPD failed to fulfill its obligation to confer under Section 3(g). The PAC ordered CPD to take immediate and appropriate action to provide Requestor copies of any subpoenas responsive to his FOIA request, subject only to permissible redactions. The PAC specifically noted that if CPD chooses to redact any information from the records it provides to Requestor, it must include a written notice of the denial that identifies the basis for each redaction.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court (Court) denied review of a petition for certiorari filed by a non-union teacher seeking a refund of fees her union had collected before the Court had declared such fees unconstitutional in its 2018 landmark Janus decision, effectively barring such claims.
 
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) decided Mark Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al. (Janus), holding that public sector agency fee arrangements (a.k.a. “fair share fees”) unconstitutionally violate the First Amendment free speech rights of nonconsenting public-sector employees by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern. As a result, unions were no longer allowed to collect such fees from employees unless they opted in to pay union fees. Following the Janus decision, numerous lawsuits were filed by non-union public sector employees seeking refunds of fees that had been paid before Janus. One case involved Stacey Mooney (Plaintiff), a public-school teacher in Eureka Comm. Sch. Dist. #140 (District) who is not a member of the Illinois Education Association (IEA). From Plaintiff’s start of employment in the District until the Janus decision, the District had deducted fair share fees from Plaintiff’s paycheck and sent them to the IEA.
 
Plaintiff sued to recover these fees on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly situated persons in federal district court, seeking restitution under Section 1983 of the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. §1983)_. The district court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed her claim with prejudice on April 23, 2019. Plaintiff then appealed to the Seventh Circuit appellate court, which affirmed the district court’s judgment on November 5, 2019. In so doing, the Seventh Circuit noted that the district court’s decision “joined the consensus across the country concluding that unions that collected fair-share fees prior to Janus…are entitled to assert a good-faith defense to section 1983 liability.” Plaintiff then sought review by the Court, but her petition was denied. By declining to review Plaintiff’s claim, as well as other similar claims from across the nation, the Court has effectively barred claims for refunds of fair share fees collected before Janus.
 

The Illinois Appellate Court for the 2nd District (Court) considered an appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County (Circuit Court) and determined that a school district properly dismissed a tenured teacher for cause in 2019 because she had failed to use professional judgment and follow the Board’s policies and procedures as required by a 2016 Notice of Remedial Warning.
 
In 2016 Racheal Kalisz (Plaintiff) was a tenured teacher at Kildeer Countryside Comm. Consol. Sch. Dist. 96 (District) when she was placed on suspension with pay while the Ill. Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) investigated her for an allegation of abuse involving her own children. While the DCFS investigation was pending, Plaintiff met with District administrators four times regarding the matter. At the first meeting Plaintiff refused to answer the District’s questions. At the second meeting Plaintiff refused to answer most of the District’s questions, but she denied than a physical confrontation had occurred. On April 6, 2016, Plaintiff received a letter from DCFS stating that the allegation of abuse against her was unfounded, Plaintiff’s union representative forwarded the letter to the Board, and Plaintiff met with the District for a third time. When questioned, Plaintiff stated she couldn’t remember if there was physical contact during the incident that led to the DCFS investigation but stated there was “possibly shoving.” Subsequently the Board received a copy of DCFS’s full report, and the District discovered the information in the report was inconsistent with what Plaintiff had stated in her meetings. On May 3, 2016, Plaintiff met with the District for a fourth time and claimed the DCFS report was inaccurate. The District believed Plaintiff was lying because the DCFS report contained consistent stories from multiple individuals, and the consequences of lying to DCFS would have been significant for Plaintiff. As a result, the District recommended that the Board issue Plaintiff a Notice of Remedial Warning. On May 17, 2016, the Board approved a Notice of Remedial Warning informing Plaintiff that her conduct was unprofessional and unsatisfactory because she failed to cooperate with the Board’s investigation of the DCFS matter, obstructed the Board’s investigation process, and provided untruthful statements. The Notice of Remedial Warning also warned Plaintiff that the following conduct, if repeated, could result in dismissal charges: 1) engaging in conduct unbecoming a Board employee, 2) failing to cooperate with Board administration during its investigation, 3) giving false statements to Board administration during its investigation, 4) showing poor professional judgment and unprofessional conduct, 5) violating Board policy 5:120, Ethics and Conduct, 6) engaging in misconduct as defined by Board policy, including behavior that disrupts the educational process and immoral conduct, 7) violating Board policy by failing to maintain standards of service required by a teacher, and 8) engaging in insubordinate conduct by disregarding Board policies and directives. To remedy her unprofessional and unsatisfactory conduct, Plaintiff was directed, among other things, to abide by all expectations set forth in Board policies, be truthful when communicating with administration and in her teaching duties, exercise appropriate and professional judgment as a teacher, conduct herself in a professional manner, and follow all board policies, procedures, and practices.
 
During the 2017-2018 school year, Plaintiff taught in a school using a model where each classroom had a content teacher (Plaintiff) and a specialist who assisted in designing lesson plans for specific populations of students. The Board learned that from November 2017 through March 2018, Plaintiff often left her classroom during co-teaching and while students were present, and for various reasons (including to make a phone call, rearrange an airline flight, and smoke a cigarette). On one occasion, Plaintiff told her co-teacher she was having stomach problems and left for the day but Plaintiff did not notify the administration, seek approval, request personal or sick time to cover her absence, or request a substitute teacher. The Board began an investigation and Plaintiff admitted that she left the classroom often and for various reasons. The District recommended to the Board that the Plaintiff be dismissed, and the Board approved this recommendation at a June 2018 Board meeting. Plaintiff was sent a Notice of Charges, including a Bill of Particulars, stating the reasons for her dismissal. Such reasons included exercising unprofessional judgment and violating Board policies related to ethics, conduct, responsibilities, and duties – behaviors that Plaintiff failed to remediate as required by her 2016 Notice of Remedial Warning.
 
Plaintiff requested a tenured teacher dismissal hearing, during which she testified that the 2016 Notice of Remedial Warning said nothing about leaving the classroom, taking too frequent restroom breaks, or failing to notify the administration about an emergency absence. Plaintiff claimed that if she had been allowed to correct these deficiencies then she could have remedied the behavior. On May 10, 2019, the hearing officer issued a written opinion finding that the Board had cause to dismiss Plaintiff and recommended that the dismissal be upheld. The hearing officer noted that Plaintiff demonstrated a lack of professional judgment, which she was warned about in 2016, therefore Plaintiff’s dismissal complied with the School Code because Plaintiff failed to remediate her behavior. The Board adopted the hearing officer’s findings and recommendations, and passed a resolution affirming Plaintiff’s dismissal. Plaintiff sought administrative review of the Board’s decision, and on January 7, 2020 following a hearing, the Circuit Court found the Board’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff was clearly erroneous. The Board then appealed to the Court.
 
On appeal, the Board argued that the Circuit Court erred because the 2016 Notice of Remedial Warning required Plaintiff to use professional judgment and follow the Board’s policies and procedures. Plaintiff counter-argued that the 2016 Notice of Remedial Warning could not be the basis for her dismissal because it was based on dishonesty and failing to cooperate, whereas the 2018 charges were not.
 
The School Code requires that before a teacher can be dismissed for conduct considered remediable, “a board must give the teacher reasonable warning in writing, stating specifically the causes that, if not removed, may result in charges.” 105 ILCS 5/24-12(d)(1). If warning is not given, then the board lacks jurisdiction to dismiss the teacher. In reviewing a teacher dismissal, courts evaluate whether a board’s factual findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence, and whether those findings provide a sufficient basis for dismissal. Generally a Board’s decision is reviewed, but because the Board adopted the hearing officer’s decision, the Court reviewed the hearing officer’s decision to determine if it was erroneous. In this case the factual findings were not disputed by either party, so the only issue before the Court was whether the factual findings supported the Board’s conclusion that cause existed to dismiss Plaintiff.
 
After reviewing the hearing record, the Court determined that the Board’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s 2017-2018 conduct violated the 2016 Notice of Remedial Warning was a proper basis for dismissal. The Court reasoned that in 2016 Plaintiff was specifically warned to exercise appropriate and professional judgment, to conduct herself professionally, and to follow all Board policies and practices, and stated “[t]here is no question that the plaintiff’s conduct in 2017-2018 violated these warnings.” The Court reversed the Circuit Court’s decision and upheld the Board’s dismissal of Plaintiff.