Recent Court Decisions

The public body must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 7(1)(c). A 7(1)(c) personal privacy exemption claim requires the balancing of the public’s interest in disclosure of certain information against the individual’s privacy interest. Close family members of a decedent may have a right of privacy in the disclosure of records concerning the decedent. To determine if the public interest outweighs any privacy rights four factors are considered and weighed: (1) the requester’s interest in disclosure, (2) the public interest in disclosure, (3) the degree of invasion of personal privacy, and (4) the availability of alternative means of obtaining the requested information.

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

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

The public body received a FOIA request for lists of outside counsel, including the agencies represented and a description of their work. The lists provided by the public body are not exempt by section 7(1)(m) of FOIA. The lists contain only general information about the legal services provided for the public body. The lists do not contain litigation plans, mental impressions, legal advice, or legal theories. Additionally, rates paid to outside counsel are subject to disclosure because the records pertain to the use of public funds by the State.

Compiling information already in the public body’s possession into a different format in order to respond to a FOIA request does not constitute the creation of a new record.

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

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

A request for certified payroll records was made of a public body. The public body did not respond in the required 5 day timeframe and it asserted that the records request was unduly burdensome. The PAC has found that a public body must respond within the required 5 days and, if the public body asserts the request as unduly burdensome, it must provide the requestor an opportunity to narrow the FOIA request.

If a public body wants to assert that a records request is unduly burdensome, it should contact its board attorney for assistance to respond within the required timeframes and narrow the request to something manageable.

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

Service learning hours required by the school district did not constitute a form of involuntary servitude. Section 27-22 of School Code allows school districts the freedom to add additional graduation requirements based on certain needs of their students and communities in their districts. Section 27-22.3 of School Code does not prohibit districts from requiring students to complete community service hours as an additional graduation requirement. A requirement of 24 hours of community service over four years is not unreasonable, onerous, or unduly burdensome.

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

A transgender boy student claimed that the school board’s bathroom policy that prohibited him from using the bathroom that corresponds with his gender identity amounted to sex discrimination under Title IX. The court found that Department of Education regulation 34 C.F.R. § 106.33 allows schools to provide separate bathroom facilities based upon sex, so long as the bathrooms are comparable. Therefore, the school board policy did not violate Title IX by limiting the student to the bathrooms assigned to his biological sex. The court found that the school board was protecting a constitutional right to bodily privacy while the student wanted to overturn a “tradition of segregating bathrooms based on biological differences between the sexes.”

The court denied the student’s request for an order allowing him to resume using the boys’ restroom while the court ruled on his Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim.

While this case does not apply in Illinois, transgender or gender nonconforming student rights is a developing and important area. School officials should continue to monitor cases on this topic.

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk