Haag v. Board of Education of Streator Elementary School District 44
2017 IL App (3d) 150643
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Streator Elementary School District 44 faced multi-year budget deficits and was on ISBE financial watch/warning lists; it adopted a deficit reduction plan in 2013.
- The Board voted to reduce educational support personnel (ESPs) from full-time (37.5–40 hrs) to part-time (no more than 29 hrs) and honorably dismissed some ESPs; part-time positions were advertised and offered.
- The union engaged in impact bargaining with the Board from February–July 2013 about the reductions; the Board asserted economic necessity.
- Plaintiffs (former full-time custodians, special education aides, and behavior interventionists) sought declaratory relief that the Board violated 105 ILCS 5/10-23.5 by reducing hours and not recalling them to full‑time positions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Board; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §10-23.5 permits reducing ESP hours only when done to 1) decrease ESP headcount or 2) discontinue a service | §10-23.5 unambiguously limits permissible reductions to those two statutory purposes | §10-23.5 governs when notice/recall rights arise; it does not categorically forbid other budgetary reductions | Court: §10-23.5 is not so limited; statute read with Code and precedent shows ESPs are at-will and lack teacher tenure protections, so plaintiffs’ reading is rejected |
| Whether Board had duty under §10-23.5 to recall plaintiffs to full‑time posts rather than hire part‑time workers | Board impermissibly avoided recall by hiring part-time employees and thus must reinstate full‑time ESPs | Recall is triggered by removal/dismissal, not mere hours reduction; §10-23.5 does not prevent setting hours for positions the Board fills | Court: Recall rights apply to employees “removed or dismissed,” not to every reduction of hours; Board entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 154 Ill. 2d 90 (summary judgment standard and when appropriate)
- Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064 (cross-motions mean only legal issues remain; de novo review)
- Schultz v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co., 237 Ill. 2d 391 (de novo review on summary judgment)
- Land v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 202 Ill. 2d 414 (statutory interpretation; legislative intent from text)
- Cook v. Board of Education of Eldorado Community Unit School District No. 4, 354 Ill. App. 3d 256 (statutory construction related to School Code)
- Paris v. Feder, 179 Ill. 2d 173 (when statutory language is clear, courts apply plain meaning)
- Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Aldridge, 179 Ill. 2d 141 (limits of expression unius maxim)
- Sulser v. Country Mutual Insurance Co., 147 Ill. 2d 548 (use of canons only to resolve ambiguity)
- Michigan Avenue National Bank v. County of Cook, 191 Ill. 2d 493 (statutory provisions read as a whole)
- Spear v. Board of Education of North Shore School District No. 112, 291 Ill. App. 3d 117 (ESPs are at-will and distinct from tenured teachers)
- Buckellew v. Board of Education of Georgetown-Ridge Farm CUSD No. 4, 215 Ill. App. 3d 506 (tenure protections do not apply to employees covered by §10-23.5)
- Kepper v. School Directors of District No. 120, 26 Ill. App. 3d 372 (distinguishing ESPs from tenured staff)
- Davis v. Toshiba Machine Co., America, 186 Ill. 2d 181 (no judicial addition of exceptions to unambiguous statutes)
- Piquard v. Board of Education of Pekin Community High School District No. 303, 242 Ill. App. 3d 477 (school board authority to set hours absent express statutory restriction)