Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. Moore
2021 IL 125785
| Ill. | 2021Background
- Daphne Moore, a tenured Chicago public school teacher, was charged under 105 ILCS 5/34-85 for allegedly failing to respond properly when a student ingested pills; she was suspended without pay pending a dismissal hearing.
- After a full §34-85 hearing the hearing officer recommended reinstatement, finding insufficient cause for dismissal.
- The Chicago Board of Education adopted reinstatement but concluded Moore’s conduct was negligent and remediable, issued a written warning, required training, imposed a 90-day time-served suspension, and reduced the net back pay awarded to her.
- Moore petitioned for administrative review arguing the Board lacked authority to suspend or deduct back pay once dismissal proceedings under §34-85 were initiated and that she must be made whole for prehearing suspension.
- The appellate court agreed with Moore and reversed; the Illinois Supreme Court granted review and reversed the appellate court, upholding the Board’s suspension and back-pay reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moore) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board may suspend a tenured teacher and reduce back pay after §34-85 dismissal proceedings begin | 2011 amendment to §34-85 requires a teacher not dismissed to be "made whole," which precludes imposing a suspension/deduction after dismissal proceedings | §34-18 grants implied authority to suspend; the 2011 amendment did not eliminate that power and the Board may impose remedial discipline | Board may suspend and reduce back pay after §34-85 proceedings conclude and teacher is reinstated |
| Whether §34-18 suspension power conflicts with the specific §34-85 "made whole" language | §34-85 is the specific provision and controls; it forbids deductions except specified offsets (interim earnings/mitigation) | The provisions can be harmonized: §34-85 governs dismissal/back-pay mechanics; §34-18 authorizes suspension as an independent remedial sanction | No conflict; both sections can be construed harmoniously and independently authorize different sanctions |
| Whether the Board impermissibly changed its statutory basis on review (post hoc justification) | Board cited §34-85 in charging documents and cannot rely on §34-18 after the fact to justify suspension/deduction | The Board fully articulated its factual findings and rationale in its order; reliance on its §34-18 power was not a post hoc rationalization | Board adequately stated grounds; its reliance on §34-18 was properly explained and not an impermissible post hoc justification |
| Whether the Board may reduce back pay by treating a remedial suspension as a setoff (a "retroactive" reduction) | "Must be made whole" and §34-85 offsets refer only to interim earnings and mitigation, not penalties imposed by the Board | §34-85(a)(7) authorizes the Board to set back pay and include offsets; the Board may net the remedy and disciplinary suspension in one order | Board had statutory authority to reduce net back pay to reflect the imposed suspension and did so lawfully |
Key Cases Cited
- Spinelli v. Immanuel Lutheran Evangelical Congregation, Inc., 118 Ill. 2d 389 (Implied school-board authority to suspend teachers)
- Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (Administrative action must be judged on the agency’s stated grounds)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (Agency must articulate satisfactory explanation for its action)
- Lake County Bd. of Review v. Property Tax Appeal Bd., 119 Ill. 2d 419 (Administrative officer may net related obligations in a single order)
- Bd. of Educ. of Rockford Sch. Dist. No. 205 v. Ill. Educ. Labor Relations Bd., 165 Ill. 2d 80 (Boards may use remedial notices and discipline as part of dismissal process)
- Cook County Republican Party v. Ill. State Bd. of Elections, 232 Ill. 2d 231 (Court reviews agency action based on the grounds invoked by the agency)