Education Law

Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. Illinois State Board of Education

Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
School Code
Citation
Case Number: 
2017 IL App (1st) 161147
Decision Date: 
Friday, April 21, 2017
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HOFFMAN

Court properly granted summary judgment for School Board, which had app roved dismissal charges against tenured teacher, on basis that teacher failed to complete remediation plan. Parties agreed that  hearing officer would conduct a dismissal hearing. Hearing was rescheduled 3 times by agreement of parties. Hearing officer lacked authority to stay dismissal hearing as her discretion was limited to granting a stay for good cause. Neither of the 2 bases for stay of dismissal, as defined in School Code (illness and unavoidable emergency), existed. Teacher's grievance proceeding was not an unavoidable emergency.(ROCHFORD and DELORT, concurring.)

L.P. v. Marion Catholic High School

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Section 1983 Action
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 16-2856
Decision Date: 
March 29, 2017
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-school and school officials’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs-students’ section 1983 action alleging that defendants’ drug testing program produced false positive results for presence of drugs for plaintiffs’ six African-American students, and that said drug testing program was being administered in way that discriminated against plaintiffs on account of their race. Plaintiffs’ complaint did not allege that instant hair testing procedure had racially discriminatory impact, or that defendants’ tester was aware of race of person whose hair it had tested. Fact that plaintiffs’ subsequent drug tests showed absence of drugs in their system did not require different result. Also, plaintiffs could not bring section 1983 action against defendant-school guidance counselor, where plaintiffs’ complaint failed to allege that said defendant was state actor. Moreover, defendant-school’s funding came from federal funds, such that plaintiff could not bring action under section 1983, but could potentially bring action under different legal theory.

Ostby v. Manhattan School Dist. No. 114

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 16-1901
Decision Date: 
March 16, 2017
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded in part

Ct. of Appeals found that most of plaintiff’s claim under Individuals with Disabilities Act was moot, where said claim had challenged defendant-school district’s 1st grade placement of plaintiffs’ son in Social Emotional Learning Foundations (SELF) program, and where son’s current third-grade IEP placement was not in SELF classroom, but rather in mainstream classroom as plaintiffs had desired. While plaintiffs argued that instant case was not moot because son could be placed in SELF program in future, Ct. found that parties’ agreement in third grade IEP placement in mainstream classroom did not make it likely that son would return to SELF placement. As such, instant appeal would only resolve which party was correct about outdated IEP. Moreover, possibility that plaintiffs would be eligible for attorney fees if they had prevailed in instant appeal was insufficient to keep case alive for resolution.

House Bill 3288

Topic: 
Amends the Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act

(Cassidy, D-Chicago) removes a list of specified persons who are required to immediately report suspected cases of child abuse or neglect to the Department of Children and Family Services and instead provides that any person, agency, organization, or entity that knows or in good faith suspects a child may be an abused child or a neglected child shall immediately report or cause a report to be made to the Department. Scheduled for hearing in House Human Services March 8. 

Senate Bill 951

Topic: 
Illinois Administrative Procedure Act

(Oberweis, R-Sugar Grove) provides that the notice to parties in a contested case under the Act shall be served, among other forms of service, by electronic mail. Provides that parties in a contested case under the Act shall be notified, among other forms of notification, by electronic mail of any decision or order in that case. 

Provides that an agency may require all attorneys to designate an electronic mail address to which all documents required under certain specified sections may be transmitted. Provides that if an attorney is required to designate an electronic mail address, he or she must designate one primary electronic mail address, and may designate no more than two secondary electronic mail addresses. 

Provides that an agency may request, but not require, an unrepresented party to designate an electronic mail address to which all documents required under certain specified sections may be transmitted. 

Allows an agency to, by rule, make electronic mail the default option for service of documents. Provides that service by electronic mail is complete on the first business day following transmission. It has just been introduced. 

 

 

 

Senate Bill 584

Topic: 
Administrative Review Law

(Barickman, R-Bloomington) provides a means for correcting inadvertent failures to correctly name necessary parties in actions for administrative review, which are called misnomers.

(1) It amends the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to mandate that final administrative orders list all of the parties of record together with their last known address of record. The final order must also include whether there are any agency rules requiring a motion for reconsideration as a part of obtaining a reviewable final administrative decision and, if so, the rules citation. 

(2) It amends the ARL to prohibit an action for administrative review to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on the misnomer of any agency that is properly served with summons issued in the action within the applicable time limits. It also prohibits dismissal for failure to perfectly name an agent if a timely action of administrative review has been filed that identifies the final administrative decision under review and makes a good faith effort to properly name the administrative agency.

(3) It amends the ARL to allow a court to correct misnomers for an erroneous identification of the administrative agency.

Senate Bill 584 passed out of Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday but will receive some tweaking amendments. 

Senate Bill 584

Topic: 
Administrative Procedure Act

(Barickman, R-Bloomington) provides a means for correcting inadvertent failures to name necessary parties in actions for administrative review.

(1) It amends the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to mandate that final administrative orders list all of the parties of record together with their last known address of record. The final order must also include whether there are any agency rules requiring a motion for reconsideration as a part of obtaining a reviewable final administrative decision and, if so, the rules citation. 

(2) It also amends the APA to allow service by electronic mail if agreed to by the parties in contested cases.  

(3) It amends the Administrative Review Law (ARL) in the Code of Civil Procedure to state that this Article is to be liberally construed in the interests of justice to grant an orderly method of judicial review of administrative agency decisions.

(4) It amends the ARL to prohibit an action for administrative review to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on the misnomer of any agency that is properly served with summons issued in the action within the applicable time limits. It also prohibits dismissal for failure to perfectly name an agent if a timely action of administrative review has been filed that identifies the final administrative decision under review and makes a good faith effort to properly name the administrative agency.

(5) It amends the ARL to allow a court to correct misnomers for an erroneous identification of the administrative agency.

Senate Bill 584 was just introduced.

 

Senate Bill 9

Topic: 
Business Opportunity Tax Act

(Hutchinson, D-Chicago Heights) creates the Business Opportunity Tax that imposes a tax on all entities that issue a Form W-2 or a Form 1099 to a resident of Illinois. It imposes a sliding scale of taxation based on the employer’s total Illinois payroll as follows. (1) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is less than $100,000, then the annual tax is $225; (2) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $100,000 or more but less than $250,000, then the annual tax is $750; (3) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $250,000 or more but less than $500,000, then the annual tax is $3,750; (4) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $500,000 or more but less than $1,500,000, then the annual tax is $7,500; and (5) if the taxpayer’s total Illinois payroll for the taxable year is $1,500,000 or more, then the annual tax is $15,000.

The following are exempt from taxation under this Act: (1) governmental employers described in Section 707 of the Illinois Income Tax Act; and (2) not-for-profit corporations that are exempt from taxation under Sections 501(c) or 501(d) of the Internal Revenue Code or organized under the General Not For Profit Corporation Act of 1986. Senate Amendment No. 2 becomes the bill and was just filed. It is part of the “grand bargain” being attempted by Senate leaders.

 

The Board of Education of Springfield School District No. 186 v. The Attorney General of Illinois

Illinois Supreme Court
Civil Court
Open Meetings Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2017 IL 120343
Decision Date: 
Friday, January 20, 2017
District: 
4th Dist.
Division/County: 
Sangamon Co.
Holding: 
Circuit court affirmed; appellate court affirmed.
Justice: 
GARMAN

(Correcting court designation.) On administrative review, circuit court reversed Attorney General's binding opinion finding violations of Open Meetings Act. School Board had met in several closed sessions to discuss possibility of entering into separation agreement with superintendent of schools. Public recital announced nature of item under consideration with sufficient detail to identify the particular transaction or issue. Board president was not required to publicly read all pages of agreement and its addenda or to enumerate key points of agreement. Public vote after public recital validly approved separation agreement. Attorney General's finding that public recital was insufficient was based on incorrect reading of Section 2(e) of Open Meetings Act. Section 2(e) does not require that recital provide explanation of terms or significance of transaction or issue. (KARMEIER, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

Beggs v. The Board of Education of Murphysboro Community Unit School District No. 186

Illinois Supreme Court
Civil Court
School Districts
Citation
Case Number: 
2016 IL 120236
Decision Date: 
Thursday, December 1, 2016
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Jackson Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court affirmed.
Justice: 
THOMAS

Full-time tenured high school math teacher was dismissed for cause by School Board. Teacher had been on sick leave, often called in late and was absence, due to grave illness of her mother, of which school administrators were aware. Decision of school board is final decision for purposes of administrative review. Board's findings as to teacher's absences and time for submitting lesson plans for substitute teacher's use were against the manifest weight of evidence. Two of 3 violations of remedial notice found by Board were not supported by manifest weight of evidence. Single incident was not a clear and material breach of warning notice. Thus, Board's decision to discharge teacher was arbitrary, unreasonable, and unrelated to requirements of service.(KARMEIER, FREEMAN, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)