Mulvey v. Carl Sandburg High School
66 N.E.3d 507
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (parents Joseph Mulvey and Ellen Hogan-Mulvey, on behalf of daughters Kathleen and Meghan) sued Carl Sandburg High School, Consolidated High School District 230, and individual school officials/coaches alleging bullying-related injuries and emotional harm.
- Claims: Counts I and III alleged breach of contract based on student and athletic handbooks’ anti-bullying policies; Count II alleged willful and wanton conduct for failing to stop/discipline bullies.
- District handbooks included anti-bullying policy, progressive discipline steps, and an athletic handbook requiring coach supervision; plaintiffs say handbook promises were binding and were breached.
- Procedural history: Court initially denied dismissal of breach claims, later granted defendants’ judgment on the pleadings dismissing breach claims for lack of contract formation; later dismissed the willful-and-wanton count under the Tort Immunity Act as discretionary conduct.
- Plaintiffs appealed the judgment on pleadings dismissal of breach claims and the dismissal of the willful-and-wanton claim; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether student/athletic handbooks created enforceable contracts | Handbook language constituted an offer; students/parents accepted by enrollment/participation; attendance is consideration | Handbooks are hortatory, not promise-specific; attendance is legally required and not consideration; no bargained-for exchange | No contract: handbook language insufficiently specific; no consideration; judgment on pleadings affirmed |
| Whether defendants’ alleged failure to discipline constituted willful and wanton conduct (tort) | School officials had notice and acted with reckless indifference; policies required specific actions | Officials’ decisions implementing anti-bullying policy are discretionary policy determinations protected by Tort Immunity Act §2-201 | Dismissed: discretionary functions immune; plaintiffs’ claim barred |
| Whether school handbook admissions in defendants’ pleadings estopped them from denying a contract | Plaintiffs argue defendants’ answer admitted the handbooks were contracts (judicial admission) | Existence of a contract is a legal question, not a subsidiary fact for judicial admission to concede | Admission did not bind court on the legal question of contract formation; claim still fails |
| Whether Meghan’s tort claim was time-barred | Plaintiffs contend tolling/alternative statutes give her two years after turning 18 | Defendants invoked the Tort Immunity Act one-year limitation; court found immunity, so statute-of-limitations issue need not be reached | Court did not decide limitation conflict; dismissal sustained on immunity grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hosp. Ctr., 115 Ill. 2d 482 (Ill. 1987) (employee handbook can create enforceable contract if offer, dissemination/awareness, and continued work as acceptance/consideration)
- H&M Commercial Driver Leasing, Inc. v. Fox Valley Containers, Inc., 209 Ill. 2d 52 (Ill. 2004) (standard for judgment on the pleadings review)
- Harinek v. 161 N. Clark St. Ltd. P’ship, 181 Ill. 2d 335 (Ill. 1998) (two-part test for immunity under Tort Immunity Act §2-201)
- Van Meter v. Darien Park Dist., 207 Ill. 2d 359 (Ill. 2003) (Tort Immunity Act construed strictly; purpose to protect public funds)
- In re Chicago Flood Litig., 176 Ill. 2d 179 (Ill. 1997) (§2-201 immunity covers negligence and willful and wanton misconduct)
- Vernonia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (U.S. 1995) (schools’ custodial role and authority to supervise students)