Fall 2007
Zukowski Law Offices has compiled an executive summary of important
case law for your review. We have included Illinois cases and
selected federal cases having impacts upon school board and
administrations. Please let us know if you would like to receive
complete copies of any of the following decisions for your further
review.
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Board of Educ. of Twp. High School Dist. No. 211 v. Ross, 2007 WL 1374919 (7th Cir. 2007)
School district did not violate IDEA least restrictive environment requirement by discontinuing mainstreaming of a student with Rett Syndrome, a neurological disorder which effects speech, hand, and gross motor movements. The student was nonverbal and required assistive technology for communication. The student also exhibited symptoms generally uncharacteristic of Rett Syndrome, specifically, the student was unintentionally physically aggressive to herself and others – resulting in frequent and significant injuries. The proper standard under the IDEA is not whether the student is receiving some benefit under mainstreaming, but whether mainstreaming was a satisfactory and appropriate means of educating the student. Least restrictive environment is education with nondisabled students to the maximum extent appropriate, not to the maximum extent possible.
The appellate court also held that the student, once reaching the age of majority, could not again file the same case brought on her behalf by her parents previously decided before her reaching the age of majority.
Shelby S. ex rel. Kathleeen T. v. Conroe Independent School Dist.,
2007 WL 36059 (U.S. 2007).
Without parental consent, school district could compel a medical examination of a special education student where it was necessary for purposes of a re-evaluation pursuant to IDEA.
The parents argued that the medical examination was likely to cause the child serious harm, was unwarranted, and would violate the child’s right to privacy. The IDEA states that a re-evaluation is warranted when the school district requires evaluation materials that are essential to assessing a child’s special education needs. The re-evaluation was warranted to formulate the child’s IEP. Medical evaluation without parental consent did not violate the student’s right to privacy because the student was free to decline special education services under the IDEA rather than submit to the medical evaluation.
Malone v. Nielson,
2007 WL 136127 (7th Cir. 2007).
Parents who are not representatives of their son’s estate could not pursue pro se claims against the school district on behalf of the son’s estate. Under Illinois law, any personal injury §1983 claim inured to the son’s estate after his death. Similarly, the parents could not pursue a claim for reimbursement for counseling services rendered to the son under IDEA. Their son incurred the expense and such a claim belonged to his estate, not his parents.
Z.W. ex rel. G.W. v. Smith,
2006 WIL 3797975 (4th Cir. 2006)
School district was not required to reimburse parents of a learning-disabled student for the tuition they paid to a private, non-state approved school, under the IDEA. The school district has offered to provide the student with FAPE, meeting the student’s unique educational needs, at an approved public school.
TEACHER DISMISSAL
Searles v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 2006 WL 3741856 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 2006).
A letter placing a teacher on unpaid medical leave was not a final administrative decision and thus the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the teacher’s appeal. The letter informed the teacher of how to proceed if she contested the finding of the clinical psychologist that the teacher was not fit to perform her duties. Therefore, the teacher had not exhausted her administrative remedies and the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the teacher’s appeal.
Mayer v. Monroe County
Community School Corp., 2007 WL 162833 (7th Cir. 2007).
School district did not violate teacher’s First Amendment free speech rights by declining to renew her contract because the teacher advocated her viewpoint on an antiwar demonstration during a classroom session on current events. The curriculum adopted by the school permitted the teacher to teach about the controversy regarding policies related to the war, drawing out arguments from all perspectives, as long as she kept her opinions to herself.
CONSTRUCTION
Carroll Seating Co. J.J.L. Inc. v. Verdico, 2006 WL 3754814 (Ill App. 1. Dist 2006).
School district was required to honor a one-year limitations period it agreed to in a payment bond posted by a contractor on a school construction project even though the Illinois Public Construction Bond Act provides for a six-month limitations period for the filing of subcontractor claims. The court found that the six month limitation period in the statute merely provided a minimum period which the parties were free to extend by contract.
TORT IMMUNITY ACT
In re Objections to Tax Levies of Freeport School Dist. No. 145, 2007 WL 1041195 (Ill App 2 Dist. 2007).
School districts could not use the tort immunity levy to pay for ordinary safety tasks or for a program implemented to attempt to close the achievement gap between African-American and Caucasian students. Job descriptions in the “risk management” plans did not reflect that such positions were assigned any tasks above and beyond ordinary safety tasks. Though the achievement gap program was implemented to settle the threat of class action litigation on behalf of minority students, the district did not pay any compensatory damages to the entities which threatened to bring the lawsuit, and the Tort Immunity Act did not allow the tort immunity levy to pay for the costs of complying with injunctive relief.
Griffin v. Willoughby,
2006 WL 3775299 (Ill. App. 4 Dist 2006).
The one-year statute of limitations period specified in the Illinois
Tort Immunity Act applicable to tort claims against local government
entities includes personal injury claims. The tort victim
was injured in an accident involving a school bus driver, but filed
suit more than one year but less than two years from the date of the
accident. The tort victim argued that the two-year statute of
limitations applicable specifically for personal injury claims applied
over the one-year statute of limitations for torts generally in the
Tort Immunity Act. The court held that the one-year period
applied over the two-year period because the legislature intended to
provide broad protection to local governments and employees from
possible tort claims.
Murray v. Chicago Youth Center,
2007 WIL 495281 (Ill. 2007).
School district not shielded from liability by Tort Immunity Act for personal injury caused by student’s participation in extracurricular activity where student flipped off a mini-trampoline and fell causing permanent paralysis. Trampolining was specifically listed in the Tort Immunity Act’s Hazardous Recreational Activity section. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower court for factual determinations regarding whether the district’s employee’s lack of supervision and precautions constituted willful and wanton conduct under the Act.
LABOR RELATIONS
Bd of Trustees of University of Illinois v. IELRB, 2007 WL 121157 (Ill. 2007).
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court to hold that the employer was required to submit the issue of employee parking to bargaining because employee parking was a mandatory subject of bargaining. The appellate court had found that while parking involved a term and condition of employment, it was a matter within the inherent managerial discretion and authority of the employer and as such, it was not a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Illinois Supreme Court deferred to the IERLB Administrative Law Judge’s determination of the facts that parking was not solely within the employer’s managerial discretion and reversed the appellate court to hold that parking was a mandatory subject of bargaining.
STUDENT DISCIPLINE
D.F. v. Board of Educ. of Syosset Cent. School Dist., 2007 WL 135711 (U.S. 2007)
The US Supreme Court denied review of a Second Circuit decision refusing to recognize that a school district’s suspension, for more than 10 days, of a middle school student who wrote a story in which classmates were murdered and sexually assaulted did not violate the students First Amendment free speech rights. The school district did not, and was not required to, conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to suspending the student.
Brandt v. Board of Educ. of
City of Chicago, 2007 WL 641516 (7th Cir. 2007).
School district did not violate any legal right of students by
rigging the results of a student election to select a “class T-shirt
design.” The school held a T-shirt design contest. Students
in the gifted program joined together to design and sponsor a T-shirt
design depicting a student with a disability. The teachers rigged
the election to select a different proposed design. The students
in the gifted program printed several t-shirts with their design and
wore them to school. The administration warned the students not
to wear the design because to do so would violate the school’s policy
prohibiting the wearing of “inappropriate words or slogans.” The
administration disciplined the students for wearing the shirts after
the warning. The students free speech rights were not violated by
the administration’s directives prohibiting them from wearing the
T-shirt.