Booker v. The Board of Education of the City of Chicago
2016 IL App (1st) 151151
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- M.F. Booker, a tenured CPS teacher at Carnegie Elementary, faced five dismissal charges (failure to perform duties; unsafe supervision; physical punishment/corporal punishment; violation of Board resolution prohibiting corporal punishment; conduct unbecoming) based on eight specifications alleging multiple incidents from Feb–Oct 2013 in which Booker struck or grabbed students and made a coercive statement to the class.
- Multiple students (J.R., F.W., M.F.) and their parents testified at the hearing describing being slapped, grabbed by the neck or shirt, slammed against fixtures, bruising/marks, and emotional harm; the principal and an investigator also testified; Booker admitted some physical contact but described it as efforts to defuse fights or maintain discipline.
- The hearing officer found the Board met its burden by a preponderance, credited several witnesses over Booker, and recommended dismissal, concluding the conduct was "irremediable" under section 34-85 of the School Code (physical/psychological harm and corporal punishment).
- The Chicago Board of Education adopted the hearing officer’s findings and terminated Booker without a prior written warning, stating it did not rely on statements from nontestifying students and found sufficient admissible evidence (testifying students, parents, photos, Booker's admissions).
- Booker sought judicial review arguing (1) denial of procedural due process because the Board relied on inadmissible hearsay and failed to collaborate with the hearing officer regarding credibility determinations; and (2) the Board’s dismissal decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and improperly treated the conduct as per se irremediable.
- The appellate court affirmed: it held Booker received a fair hearing with opportunity to cross-examine, the Board did not rely on nontestifying students’ hearsay, and the facts supported a finding of irremediable conduct (corporal punishment and physical/psychological harm) so no written warning was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Booker was denied procedural due process because the Board failed to collaborate with the hearing officer and relied on hearsay from nontestifying students | Board rejected or relied on out-of-court investigative memoranda and made new credibility determinations without consulting the hearing officer; Booker could not cross-examine anonymous accusers | Board accepted the hearing officer’s credibility findings, expressly disclaimed reliance on nontestifying students’ statements, and there was live witness testimony and cross-examination | No due process violation: hearing afforded cross-examination, Board deferred to hearing officer, and it did not rely on nontestifying students’ hearsay |
| Whether admission/use of investigative memoranda/out-of-court statements (hearsay) violated Booker's right to confront witnesses | Hearsay statements were pivotal; their use denied right to confront and impaired fairness | Administrative hearings need not follow strict evidence rules; even if hearsay was considered, sufficient competent admissible evidence supported the decision | Improper hearsay (if any) was not prejudicial; admissible evidence (testifying students, parents, photos, admissions) sufficed |
| Whether the Board misapplied its reasonable-force guidelines and should have treated the conduct as remediable (requiring a written warning) | Booker's interventions were reasonable, momentary physical interventions to prevent fights or restore order; conduct could be remediated with warning/training | Booker's force exceeded permitted ‘‘momentary physical intervention’’ (grabbing by neck/shirt, slamming into fixtures), violated anti-corporal-punishment policy, and caused physical/psychological harm | Board reasonably found the conduct constituted corporal punishment/caused harm and was per se irremediable under section 34-85, so dismissal without prior warning was proper |
| Whether the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious or against the manifest weight of evidence | Evidence ambiguous; credibility issues; some reliance on investigator memoranda | Credible live testimony, photographs, parental reports, and Booker’s admissions support findings; Board issued reasoned opinion | Not arbitrary or against manifest weight; substantial evidence supports dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Abrahamson v. Illinois Dep’t of Prof’l Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76 (Ill. 1992) (due-process standards for administrative hearings; right to be heard and cross-examine)
- Hearne v. Chicago School Reform Bd. of Trustees, 322 Ill. App. 3d 467 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001) (board must collaborate with hearing officer when it reverses credibility findings based on conflicting evidence)
- Colquitt v. Rich Township High School District, 298 Ill. App. 3d 856 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (admission of absent witnesses’ statements in student-discipline hearings can violate due process when credibility is dispositive)
- City of Belvidere v. Illinois State Labor Relations Bd., 181 Ill. 2d 191 (Ill. 1998) (standards of review for administrative findings of fact and law)
- Gilliland v. Board of Education, 67 Ill. 2d 143 (Ill. 1977) (test for remediable vs. irremediable conduct pre-amendment)
- Prato v. Vallas, 331 Ill. App. 3d 852 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (Board’s remediability determinations are factual and entitled to deference)
- Lowe v. Board of Education, 76 Ill. App. 3d 348 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979) (corporal punishment as irremediable cause for dismissal)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (standards for arbitrary and capricious agency action)