In February 2012, full-time tenured special education teacher Michelle Frakes received an “unsatisfactory” performance rating. Frakes refused to sign the rating, asserting it was unfair, and she formalized her opposition in a written document entitled “Points of Rebuttal.” In the “Points of Rebuttal,” Frakes admitted she needed to improve her performance and classroom management but defended her teaching methods. Frakes was placed on a remediation plan, but before it went into effect she requested and was placed on medical leave due to serious health conditions. Frakes’ unsatisfactory rating placed her and nine other full-time tenured teachers in “Group 2” on the “sequence of honorable dismissal list.” On April 9, 2012 Frakes, along with 54 other teachers, was honorably dismissed in a voluntary reduction in force.

Frakes sued the District in federal court, alleging that her “unsatisfactory” rating and subsequent honorable dismissal interfered with her ability to aid students in exercising their rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The district court granted summary judgement for the District, finding Frakes did not provide evidence that she engaged in protected activity under Section 504. On appeal, in its first time addressing an interference claim under Section 504, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Court first noted that a Section 504 employment discrimination claim is controlled by the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), so it looked at Frakes’ claim through the ADA anti-interference provision, which provides it is unlawful to “coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on the account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by the ADA.” To prevail on her claim, Frakes would need to demonstrate that: (1) she engaged in activity statutorily protected by the ADA; (2) she was engaged in, or aided or encouraged others in, the exercise or enjoyment of ADA protected rights; (3) the defendants coerced, threatened, intimidated, or interfered on account of her protected activity; and (4) the defendants were motivated by an intent to discriminate. Frakes asserted that she engaged in protected activity when she refused to change her teaching methods in response to the “unsatisfactory” rating, but the Court did not buy her assertion, pointing out that she did not dispute her teaching methods in her “Points in Rebuttal,” nor did she mention her students’ rights or interests at all. The Court succinctly held that “the law protects assertions of rights, not teaching methods. The fact that Frakes taught students who are protected by the ADA does not alone render her teaching ‘protected activity.’”

A County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff’s Office) violated FOIA by improperly denying the release of two 9-1-1 recordings in response to two FOIA requests. On April 27, 2017, a reporter requested copies of two 9-1-1 recordings made from the home of a child who had been reported missing and was later found dead. The Sheriff’s Office promptly denied both requests in their entireties, asserting that the voice recordings constituted “biometric identifiers,” which are included in Section 2(c-5)’s definition of “private information” exempt from disclosure. The Sheriff’s Office also denied disclosure of the second 9-1-1 recording based on Section 7(1)(d)(vii), asserting that disclosure could impede the ongoing investigation of the child’s death.

On review, the PAC found that the voice recordings did not constitute “biometric identifiers” because that term is commonly understood to refer to the measurement and analysis of a unique physical or behavioral characteristic that identifies a person. Since the voice recordings did not contain a measurement or analysis of the speaker’s voice (or a “voiceprint”), they were not “biometric identifiers” and thus their disclosure could not be denied under Section 2(c-5).

Regarding the Sheriff’s Office’s Section 7(1)(d)(vii) assertion, the PAC found that the existence of a criminal investigation by itself does not render records relating to the investigation exempt from disclosure. To successfully make this assertion, the Sheriff’s Office would have had to provide a factual basis and “clear and convincing evidence” demonstrating how the disclosure of the 9-1-1 recording would obstruct an ongoing criminal investigation.

The PAC ordered the Sheriff’s Office to immediately disclose the 9-1-1 recordings to the reporter.

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

The City of Rockford (City) violated FOIA by improperly redacting employees’ names from certified payroll records when disclosing them in response to a FOIA request. On May 22, 2017, an individual submitted a request for copies of certified payroll records for a specific City project by a specific City contractor. The City promptly responded by stating the FOIA request was approved in its entirety and by providing copies of the certified payroll records, but the City redacted the contractor’s employees’ names, addresses, social security numbers, and driver’s license numbers from the records. Driver’s license numbers are exempt as “private information” under Section 7(1)(b) of FOIA, and Section 2.10 of FOIA permits a public body to redact contractor’s employees’ addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers from certified payroll records submitted to a public body under the Prevailing Wage Act. However, the City erred when it redacted the employees’ names, which are not exempt from disclosure. Moreover, the City had stated the FOIA request was approved in its entirety and it did not accurately state that it had partially denied the FOIA request (by making redactions) nor explain why redactions were made. The PAC ordered the City to immediately disclose the contractor’s employees’ names contained within the requested certified payroll records.

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

The City of Carlinville (City) violated FOIA by failing to comply with, deny in whole or in part, or otherwise appropriately respond to a FOIA request. On March 18, 2017, an individual submitted a request for copies of various purchase card statements and cell phone statements since October 1, 2016, as well as copies of proof that elected officials completed FOIA and OMA training. Receiving no response, on March 28, 2017, the requestor requested the PAC review the City’s failure to respond. The PAC found that the City violated Section 3(d) of FOIA by failing to provide the requested records or to respond in writing to the FOIA request. The PAC ordered the City to immediately provide all records in response to the FOIA requestor, subject only to any permissible redactions under Section 7.

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

The Office of the Governor (Governor’s Office) violated FOIA by failing to comply with, deny in whole or in part, or otherwise appropriately respond to a FOIA request. On March 10, 2017, an individual submitted a request via email for documents concerning “emails that Deputy Governor Leslie Munger sent or received since she became Deputy Governor; and Munger’s daily schedule for the next six months.” Ten days later, the requestor sent a follow-up email stating she had not received a response to her FOIA. Continuing to receive no response, the requestor sent six emails between April 18, 2017 and May 4, 2017 inquiring about her FOIA request. On May 5, 2017, the requestor still had not received a response from the Governor’s Office and requested the PAC review the matter. The PAC forwarded the Request for Review to the Governor’s Office twice but, as of the date of this binding opinion, had not received a response.

The PAC found that the Governor’s Office violated Section 3(d) of FOIA by failing to appropriately respond to a FOIA request. The PAC ordered the Governor’s Office to immediately provide all records in response to the FOIA requestor, subject only to any permissible redactions under Section 7. Again, the bottom line here is that public bodies must respond to FOIA requests within the time permitted per statute.

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