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
  • Open Meetings Act - OMA
    Improper Closed Session Discussion of Various Topics Under the Exception for Setting the Price for Sale or Lease of Property
    Case: Public Access Opinion 23-005
    Decision Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2023

    On February 10, 2023, a petitioner submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Counselor (PAC) alleging that the Board of Trustees for the Lyons Township High School District 204 (Board) violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) on multiple occasions, including by exceeding the scope of the exception that it cited to enter closed session twice at its January 23, 2023, meeting.

    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 limited exceptions enumerated in Section 2(c). Exceptions are to be strictly construed, extending only to subjects clearly within their scope. Section 2(c)(6) permits a public body to close a portion of a meeting to discuss “[t]he setting of a price for sale or lease of a property owned by the public body.”

    On January 23, 2023, the Board closed two portions of its meeting to the public to discuss what the Board’s response to the PAC characterized as the next steps in marketing and selling a parcel of property. The Board also discussed in closed session additional topics related to the potential sale of the property, but it did not discuss setting the price of the property.

    The PAC concluded that the Board violated Section 2(a) of OMA by discussing possible courses of action and scenarios that might occur following the Board’s potential rejection of bids, which do not fall within the scope of Section 2(c)(6) of OMA, or any other exception to the general requirement that public bodies conduct public business openly.

    The PAC directed the Board to disclose to petitioner and make publicly available the closed session verbatim recordings and closed session minutes of its January 23, 2023, meeting.

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

    Mary H. Bandstra, IASB Law Clerk

  • General Interest to School Officials
    ADA Suit for Compensatory Damages after IDEA Complaint Does Not First Require Exhaustion of IDEA Administrative Processes
    Case: Miguel Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, et al. 143 S. Ct. 859 (2023)
    Decision Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2023
    On March 21, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States (Court) issued its unanimous decision in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, holding that 1) the administrative exhaustion requirement in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) applies only to suits brought under another federal law that seek relief also available under IDEA, and 2) petitioner was not required to exhaust administrative procedures under IDEA before seeking relief in the form of compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

    Petitioner Miguel Luna Perez, who is deaf, attended schools in Michigan’s Sturgis Public School District (District) from ages 9 through 20. When the District announced that it would not permit Mr. Perez to graduate, he and his family filed an administrative complaint with the Michigan Department of Education alleging that the District failed to provide him a free and appropriate public education as required by the IDEA . They claimed that the District supplied Mr. Perez with unqualified interpreters and misrepresented his educational progress. The parties reached a settlement in which the District promised to provide the forward-looking relief Mr. Perez sought, including additional schooling.

    Mr. Perez then sued in federal district court under the ADA seeking backward-looking relief via compensatory damages. The District moved to dismiss. It claimed that 20 U. S. C. §1415(l) barred Mr. Perez from bringing his ADA claim because it requires a plaintiff “seeking relief that is also available under” IDEA to first exhaust IDEA’s administrative procedures. The district court agreed and dismissed the suit, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

    In its unanimous opinion, the Court noted that, first, the statute sets forth this general rule: “Nothing in [IDEA] shall be construed to restrict” the ability of individuals to seek “remedies” under the ADA or “other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities.” Second, the statute offers a qualification, prohibiting certain suits with this language: “[E]xcept that before the filing of a civil action under such [other federal] laws seeking relief that is also available under this subchapter, the procedures under subsections (f) and (g) shall be exhausted.” In turn, subsections (f) and (g) provide affected children and their parents with the right to a “due process hearing” before a local or state administrative official, followed by an “appeal” to the state education agency.

    Mr. Perez’s ADA complaint was seeking compensatory damages, a remedy IDEA cannot supply. Mr. Perez argued that the statute required him to exhaust the administrative process found in subsections (f) and (g) only to the extent he pursued a suit under another federal law for remedies IDEA also provides. The District argued that the statute requires a plaintiff to exhaust subsections (f) and (g) before he may pursue a suit under another federal law if that suit seeks relief for the same underlying harm IDEA exists to address.

    The Court noted that the language of the statute focuses on “remedies”, and that “everyone agrees” that the IDEA does not provide for compensatory damages. Therefore, Perez was not required to exhaust administrative procedures under IDEA before seeking compensatory damages under ADA. The Court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.

    Mary H. Bandstra, IASB Law Clerk

     
  • Open Meetings Act - OMA
    Agenda Must State General Type of Employee and Personnel Transaction When Taking Final Action on Severance Agreement
    Case: Public Access Opinion 23-004
    Decision Date: Monday, March 27, 2023
    On January 5, 2023, Requestor submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Counselor (PAC) alleging that the Board of Education of Township High School District 214 (“Board”) had violated Open Meetings Act (OMA) Sec 2.02(c) during its September 15, 2022 meeting by taking final action to approve a severance agreement with an assistant superintendent without setting forth the general subject matter of that final action on the meeting agenda.

    The agenda for the September 15, 2022 meeting indicated that the Board would adjourn to closed session to discuss “the appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body,” which is proper under Sec. 2(c)(1). It also indicated that the Board would reconvene in open session to take final action, which is required under Sec. 2(e). The meeting minutes posted online on October 25, 2022 state that the Board approved “Personnel Report Transaction II”. However, neither the agenda nor the minutes indicated that the Board was approving a severance agreement involving a payout of $183,274 to an assistant superintendent who had been with the district since 2013.

    First, the PAC found that Requestor’s Request for Review was timely. Sec 3.5(a) states that one may file a request for review within 60 days of the alleged OMA violation. However, Sec 3.5(a) also states that if one using reasonable diligence only discovers facts about the violation after the 60-day period but before two years after the violation, they may still file a request for review within 60 days of the discovery. In this case, the PAC noted that the agenda and meeting minutes were sufficiently vague that a person using reasonable diligence would not have known about the severance agreement. Requestor only learned about the severance agreement from newspaper articles published in December 2022. Since his request was made within 60 days of his discovery, it was timely under Sec 3.5(a).

    Second, the PAC found that the Board had violated Sec. 2.02(c) of OMA. Sec 2.02(c) requires that agendas must set forth the general subject matter of any resolution or ordinance that will be the subject of final action at a meeting. The PAC noted that the “general subject matter” must be sufficiently descriptive to provide advance notice to the public. In this case, the agenda did not mention either the general type of employee or general type of personnel transaction. The public could not have known that the Board intended to take final action on a $183,274 severance agreement, which was significant and plainly distinguishable from other routine personnel transactions.

    The PAC ordered the Board to re-vote the severance agreement at an open meeting with a sufficiently detailed agenda item. For future personnel transaction approvals, the Board is also required to note the general type of employee and general type of personnel transaction on the agenda.

    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
    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