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.
  • Freedom of Information Act - FOIA
    FOIA responding to requests
    Case: Sebring v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, Case No. CE71688, (Polk County, Iowa).
    Decision Date: Saturday, May 31, 2014

    The following summary is not applicable in Illinois but may be of interest to school officials because of its FOIA discussion.

    An Iowa school district and its officials were sued for invasion of privacy by a former superintendent, Ms. Sebring. She alleged that the school district released private emails of a sexual nature belonging to her in response to a FOIA request. The private emails contained the same search terms as the terms used for responding to the FOIA request.

    The court held that the school district should not have released these private emails, and it will allow Sebring to move forward with her case. The court noted that when the school district uncovered the emails, it had evidence of her misuse of the district’s technology, which could have led to discipline. In Iowa, documents related to disciplinary matters are exempt from disclosure under its public records law.

    While this opinion is not binding in Illinois, it is instructive to school officials to review their FOIA requests carefully, and if warranted with local counsel, for private information that should not be released. It also serves as a reminder to school officials to use school technology for school-related purposes only.

  • Administrator Contracts
    Pension Reform Litigation
    Case: In Re: Pension Reform Litigation, Order Granting Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
    Decision Date: Thursday, May 15, 2014

    P.A. 98-599 (Pension Reform) has temporarily been stayed in its entirety. That means that for now the State of Illinois cannot implement P.A. 98-599 until Illinois courts make a decision about whether the new Pension Reform law is unconstitutional.

    For readers who want more analysis, the following excerpt is from a recent article by by David T. Zafiratos and Ashley Folk, Ottosen Britz Kelly Cooper Gilbert & DiNolfo, Ltd. It discusses how some states in the nation are coming to opposite conclusions on the pension reform issue.

    Constitutional challenges to pension benefit cuts met with mixed results

    Legal Insights for Pension Boards (Spring 2014)

    Although, it had traditionally been assumed that public pensions enjoyed a heightened protection from reduction, suspension or elimination for current public employees and retirees, recent cuts by many state legislatures have tested that assumption. Two recent cases from the New Mexico and Arizona Supreme Courts have rendered opposite conclusions.

    In Bartlett v. Cameron, 316 P.3d 889 (2013), the Supreme Court of New Mexico held that the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) paid out to retirees is not a vested property right. The New Mexico Constitution provides that public employees acquire vested property rights with due process protections in their retirement plans. The court labeled COLA as a legislative tool used to implement current public policy, as opposed to a vested property right. COLA is provided independently from the obligation to pay retirement benefits. Thus, reducing the COLA does not also reduce the retirees’ underlying substantive retirement benefits.

    Conversely, in the case of Fields v. The Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan, 680 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 15 (2014), the Arizona Supreme Court held that modification of a statutory formula for calculating pension benefit increases violated the Pension Clause of the Arizona Constitution. The Arizona Constitution states that pension benefits shall not be diminished or impaired. The Supreme Court of Arizona came out opposite on this issue than the Supreme Court of New Mexico had in Bartlett. In Fields the court held that the term “benefit” encompasses benefit increases under the Pension Clause. The court relied on the history of the statute and Arizona precedent to reach this conclusion. Second, the court determined that changing the benefit increase formula diminished and impaired the benefits.

    Illinois courts are not bound by or required to find either the Arizona or New Mexico decisions persuasive when deciding whether P.A. 98-599 is unconstitutional. However, in Fields, the Arizona Supreme Court specifically stated that Illinois had previously determined that benefit calculation formulas are entitled to constitutional protection. This could indicate that Illinois may hold itself in the minority with Arizona when the recent challenges are decided, and strike down the reform.

    Of the seventeen states that have changed their COLAs, twelve have been challenged in court. In the nine states where the courts have ruled, eight have upheld the cut to COLAs. As the Bartlett court pointed out, the recent wave of COLA legislation can be attributed to the economic downturn that is affecting the fiscal viability of public funds. Illinois courts are being faced with identical arguments relating to the current reform —specifically that there is a constitutionally protected contractual right to the COLA calculation. Illinois has traditionally been considered one of the states with the greatest constitutional protection of public pension benefits. If Illinois courts decide to consider the current judicial thinking on the matter, it will be interesting to see if the reform is upheld in light of this strong constitutional protection.

    Reprinted and Adapted with permission from Legal Insights for Pension Boards

    © 2014 Ottosen Britz Kelly Cooper Gilber & DiNolfo, Ltd.

  • Individual Board Member Interests
    Email and text messages
    Case: Hadley v. Doe, - N.E.3d--, 2014 WL 1847824, (Ill.App. 2 Dist.,2014).
    Decision Date: Thursday, May 8, 2014
    This case is a reminder to school officials that nothing online is truly anonymous. Here, a county board candidate (candidate) pursued a defamation claim against a fictitious Internet name, “Fuboy.” Fuboy referred to the candidate as a “molester.” This decision is centered on the candidate’s motion requesting the court to direct an Internet provider to provide the identity and last known address of its subscriber, Fuboy, whose actual name was unknown. The candidate needs Fuboy’s identity to properly name the subscriber in the lawsuit. The court also addressed the candidate’s failure to ask the court for permission to file against the fictitious name Fuboy (lawsuits must name an actual person). While the candidate should have sought permission under court rules to file against the fictitious name Fuboy, the case will still go forward, and the Internet service provided will need to respond to the subpoena requesting it to provide the identity and last known address of its subscriber using Fuboy.
  • Open Meetings Act - OMA
    Agenda
    Case: Public Access Opinion 14-003
    Decision Date: Monday, May 5, 2014

    A public body posted its agenda 48 hours before a meeting as OMA requires. Then, it amended its agenda 29 hours before the meeting. The amendment deleted two action items upon which the public body would vote on at a later date. The intent of the amendment was to inform the public that the items would not be voted upon during the meeting as previously announced. In this case, the public still had at least 48 hours’ notice of the items for which the public body would take action. The PAC found no violation of OMA.

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

  • Freedom of Information Act - FOIA
    Settlement contracts – confidentiality provisions
    Case: Public Access Opinion 14-004
    Decision Date: Friday, May 9, 2014

    Confidentiality provisions entered into by public bodies are contrary to the specific language of Section 2.20 in FOIA and the legislative intent underlying that section of the law. The PAC found such provisions in settlement agreements are not enforceable and must be released pursuant to FOIA requests.

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