Mulvey v. Carl Sandburg High School
2016 IL App (1st) 151615
Ill. App. Ct.2017Background
- Joseph and Ellen Mulvey sued on behalf of their daughter Kathleen (and Kathleen’s sister Meghan sued similarly), alleging prolonged bullying by teammates at Carl Sandburg High School and claiming the school and district officials failed to enforce anti-bullying policies.
- Plaintiffs relied on the District 230 student and athletic handbooks and Illinois’ statutory bullying-prevention requirements as the basis for breach-of-contract claims (Counts I and III) and a willful-and-wanton tort claim (Count II).
- Defendants moved to dismiss: arguing handbooks cannot create enforceable contracts (lack of offer/acceptance/consideration), asserting statutory immunity for discretionary acts under the Tort Immunity Act, and raising statute-of-limitations defenses.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing the breach-of-contract counts and later dismissed the willful-and-wanton claim on discretionary-immunity grounds (also finding Meghan’s claim time-barred). Plaintiffs appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed contract formation principles (Duldulao framework), the discretionary/ministerial distinction under the Tort Immunity Act, and statutory definitions of bullying and school duties, then affirmed the dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do student/athletic handbooks form a binding contract? | Handbooks made clear promises; enrollment/participation constituted acceptance and students’ attendance (and taxes) furnished consideration. | Handbook language is hortatory, not a specific promise; attendance is not consideration; public-school context differs from employee handbooks. | No contract: handbook language insufficient to show offer/acceptance/consideration; breach claims dismissed. |
| Did defendants’ answer create a judicial admission that a contract existed? | Defendants admitted the handbook "forms contracts" so existence of contract is conceded. | Contract formation is a question of law not susceptible to a binding factual judicial admission. | Judicial admission did not bind the court on the legal question of contract formation. |
| Is the willful-and-wanton claim barred by statutory immunity (discretionary function)? | Defendants performed ministerial duties per handbook (e.g., point system), so immunity does not apply. | Implementation and enforcement of anti-bullying policy require discretionary, policy-based judgments protected by Tort Immunity Act (sections 2-201/2-109). | Claim barred: school officials’ actions/omissions were discretionary policy determinations and immune; Count II dismissed. |
| Which statute of limitations applies to Meghan’s tort claim? | Two-year tolling under 735 ILCS 5/13-211 from minority. | One-year under Tort Immunity Act §8-101. | Court did not resolve conflict because Meghan’s claim was dismissed on immunity grounds; the appellate court did not need to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center, 115 Ill. 2d 482 (handbook/policy forms enforceable contract only when offer, dissemination, and continued performance provide consideration)
- Harinek v. 161 North Clark Street Ltd. Partnership, 181 Ill. 2d 335 (two-part test for §2-201 immunity: position + showing policy determination and exercise of discretion)
- In re Chicago Flood Litigation, 176 Ill. 2d 179 (§2-201 immunity covers negligence and willful-and-wanton misconduct for policy decisions)
- Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (public schools’ custodial/tutelary role and scope of supervision)
- Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School, 69 Ill. 2d 320 (consideration requires detriment or benefit and bargained-for exchange)
- West v. Kirkham, 147 Ill. 2d 1 (policy decisions require balancing competing interests)