Recent Court Decisions

A public body must cite the specific exception authorizing the closing of a meeting to the public. Section 2 (c) of the OMA allows an exception for discussions that directly involve specific employees. This section does not contain an exception that permits a public body to hold closed sessions to discuss employees in general or issues that may ultimately have an impact on employees.

The public should have advance notice that the public body is going to take final action. Here, the public body failed to incorporate in their regular meeting agenda an item indicating that a final action may be taken or any reference to the subject matter of the contract that was the subject of final action. The only reference to the discussion and vote on the contract was an item on the agenda titled “Executive Session”. Thus, the public body failed to give advance notice and violated Section 2.02(c) of the OMA.

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

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

The school district has the right to discipline students for online speech if the speech creates a reasonable risk of a substantial disruption at school. Speech directed at the school community and that is understood to be threatening, harassing, and intimidating could reasonably be anticipated to cause a substantial disruption at school.

While this does not apply in Illinois, this case reflects the increasing trend of courts recognizing the right of school districts to discipline students for certain misconduct that occurs off-campus and online.

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

Plaintiffs filed claims against the principal and school board for racial discrimination; violation of their son’s right not to be apprehended or taken into custody; violation of his right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures; and violation of his right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The school board and principal asserted that there are no disputed facts and trial is not necessary. The principal also asserted that she is entitled to qualified immunity, protection from liability and trial.

Regarding the principal, the court found that a trial was necessary. The principal is not entitled to qualified immunity because the rights she may have violated were clearly established and she had actual notice of the standards pertaining to school searches. Additionally, a jury could find that the principal violated the student’s constitutional rights by conducting a search without reasonable suspicion or carrying out a search that was unreasonable in scope

Regarding the school board, the court found that a trial was not necessary because the plaintiffs could not present any evidence to show that the school board acted with deliberate indifference to the rights of the student. The board properly trained the principal and all other employees on proper school search procedures by providing a detailed pamphlet explaining the current laws regarding school searches. The assistant superintendent also reviewed the school’s rules on searches with the principal.

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

Bradley has filed a petition to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The first legal issue in this case is whether all child protective services workers in the United States are subject to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment if they interview a child without parent or guardian consent. The second legal issue is whether the Department of Children and Families’ policies violated the petitioner's fundamental liberty interest in the “integrity of the family” with the use of a picture mobile phone.

While this case applies to child protective services workers, constitutional challenges involving child protective services and school personnel are becoming prevalent in courts. For example, see Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (2015).

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

Plaintiffs sued the school district for alleged violations of NCLB’s choice provision. The School Code does not provide a private cause of action for damages, nor does Illinois recognize the tort of educational malpractice. The Tort Immunity Act further bars such complaints. The purpose of the Tort Immunity Act is to protect local public entities and public employees from liability arising from the operation of government. By providing immunity the Ill. Gen. Assembly sought to prevent public funds from being diverted from their intended purpose to the payment of damages claims.

Read the entire decision here: www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2015/2ndDistrict/2140704.pdf.