Chicago Teachers Union v. BOARD OF EDUC.
662 F.3d 761
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Board of Education of Chicago laid off ~1,289 tenured teachers in summer 2010 due to budget deficits; recalls occurred for some but no formal recall policy was in place.
- Union sued, contending tenured teachers have a Fourteenth Amendment property interest entitling a recall opportunity for new vacancies arising post-layoff.
- District court held that Illinois law creates a cognizable property interest via 105 ILCS 5/34-18(31) and injunctions requiring recall procedures were warranted.
- Board appealed, seeking to stay injunction; district court granted stay, and this appeal challenges scope and prerequisites of recall rules.
- Statutory background: 1995 amendments removed reserve-teacher recall rights from 34-84 and added 34-18(31), authorizing Board to promulgate layoff/recall procedures but not mandating them.
- Court ultimately affirms that tenured laid-off teachers have a cognizable property interest warranting a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate qualification for vacancies, and directs remand to redraft injunction consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tenured teachers have a due-process property interest in recall for new vacancies | Union: yes, tenure plus 34-18(31) creates entitlement to recall procedures. | Board: no automatic recall right; 34-18(31) is an enabling statute, not a guaranteed procedure. | Yes, the teachers have a cognizable property interest and are entitled to recall-like process for vacancies. |
| Nature of 34-18(31): creates a property right or only an enabling framework | Statute, with limits on Board discretion, foresees recall rights as a property entitlement. | Statute is enabling; does not by itself create enforceable recall rights. | statute is enabling; yet limits on discretion plus tenure create a meaningful expectation supporting recall opportunity for a reasonable period. |
| Scope of the injunction regarding recall procedures | Board must implement recall procedures under 34-18(31) with Union involvement for good-faith rulemaking. | Judicial imposition of precise recall terms exceeds statute; cooperation with Union not required by 34-18(31). | Affirmed that recall procedures are required but narrowed injunction to not compel union-backed consultation. |
| Effect of rescinding layoff without back pay or payroll status | Rescinding discharges restores meaningful recall opportunities for vacancies. | Rescission does not entitle back pay or payroll status; rights remain contingent. | Discharges can be rescinded to preserve recall opportunities; no back pay or payroll status awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests are created by state law and must be more than abstract needs)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard for property interests)
- Lalvani v. Cook County, 269 F.3d 785 (2001) (due process for employment interests requires meaningful post-termination procedures)
- Land v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago,, 202 Ill. 2d 414, 269 Ill. Dec. 452, 781 N.E.2d 249 (2002) (Illinois holds Board may lay off for lack of work; 34-18(31) governs recall procedures)
- Mims v. Bd. of Educ., 523 F.2d 711 (7th Cir. 1975) (layoff may implicate a property interest; opportunity to demonstrate capability may be required)