Dynak v. Board of Education of Wood Dale School District 7
135 N.E.3d 87
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Margaret Dynak, a full-time Wood Dale School District 7 teacher, gave birth by C-section June 6, 2016 (last full day of the 2015–16 school year). She had amassed 71 sick days and earned 14 more at the start of 2016–17.
- Dynak used 1.5 sick days for June 6–7, 2016 and requested to apply the remaining 28.5 of a statutory 30-day birth-related sick-leave allowance to the start of the 2016–17 school year (immediately after ~10 weeks of summer break).
- District approved 12 weeks of FMLA leave beginning August 18, 2016 but denied the request to use 28.5 accumulated sick days without medical certification.
- Dynak sued for declaratory relief under 105 ILCS 5/24‑6 (School Code) to use the 30 sick days across the break, sought attorney fees under the Wage Act, and initially alleged a Wage Payment Act violation (later abandoned).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Board; the appellate court affirms, holding sick-leave “days” are workdays and that permitting Dynak’s requested allocation across a ~50-work-day summer break would produce an absurd result.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §24-6’s “30 days for birth” may be applied across a prolonged nonwork break so the 30 workdays need not be contiguous with the birth event | Dynak: §24-6 plainly allows using 30 accumulated sick workdays “for birth”; statute has no temporal limit, so she can take 30 consecutive workdays beginning with her next workday even if interrupted by summer | Board: Sick days are tied to the school year/workdays; allowing use after a long nonwork break divorces leave from its triggering event and yields absurd results; certification rules and statutory context support denial | Court: “Days” = workdays; sick leave must be tied to its triggering event; permitting the remainder of a 30‑work‑day birth leave to begin ~10 weeks after birth (after ~50 workdays off) would be absurd, so denial was proper |
| Whether “days” in §24-6 means calendar days or workdays | Dynak: Implied argument that “30 days” could be interpreted to run from birth across calendar days | Board: “Day” should be construed as workday consistent with sick-leave purpose | Held: “Days” mean workdays (consistent with Winks and ordinary meaning); statutory context and absurdity avoidance require this reading |
| Whether acceptance of FMLA leave for birth compels allowance of birth-related sick pay under §24-6 | Dynak: Board’s approval of FMLA for birth but denial of sick pay is inconsistent/indefensible | Board: FMLA has its own temporal limits (12 months) and serves different purpose; approval of FMLA does not create §24-6 entitlement | Held: No contradiction; FMLA and §24-6 differ in purpose and timing; FMLA approval does not mandate §24-6 sick-pay entitlement |
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees under the Wage Act tied to success on §24-6 claim | Dynak: If she prevails on §24-6 entitlement, she gets fees under the Wage Act | Board: If §24-6 claim fails, no fees | Held: Because §24-6 claim fails, Dynak is not entitled to attorney fees under the Wage Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Winks v. Board of Education, 78 Ill. 2d 128 (Ill. 1979) (interpreting §24-6’s scope re: maternity leave and supporting workday approach)
- Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., 2019 IL 123186 (Ill. 2019) (statutory interpretation follows plain language; courts may not add conditions unexpressed by legislature)
- Palm v. Holocker, 2018 IL 123152 (Ill. 2018) (avoid constructions that produce absurd, unreasonable, or unjust results)