Young-Gibson v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago
959 N.E.2d 751
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiff was appointed principal of Julian High School in 2008 and could be removed for cause under §34-85 or as permitted under §§34-8.3 and 34-8.4.
- CEO considered removing plaintiff due to Julian’s probation status and chronic deficiencies, including ISBE concerns about special education and safety.
- A hearing was held (Aug 2009) where witnesses described chronic instructional, safety, maintenance, and parental-communication problems under plaintiff’s leadership.
- ISBE downgraded Julian from fully recognized to recognized pending further review and then probation, threatening loss of state funding.
- Board reassigned plaintiff to an administrative position pending removal and issued notices of potential removal.
- Hearing officer recommended removal under §34-8.3(d); CEO and Board adopted the recommendation and terminated plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 34-85 procedures were required to remove a principal under 34-8.3(d) | Young-Gibson argues 34-85 must govern removal. | Board contends 34-8.3(d) allows removal without 34-85 procedures. | Removal allowed without 34-85 procedures. |
| Whether Board complied with 34-8.3(a)-(c) procedures in removal | Procedural missteps, lack of remediation plan and budget raised issues. | Board followed 34-8.3(a)-(c) including hearing, plan and budget evidence. | Board complied with 34-8.3(a)-(c). |
| Whether plaintiff’s contract authorized removal under 34-8.3 and thus bypassed 34-85 | Contract required compliance with 34-85 for removal for cause. | Contract expressly allowed removal under 34-8.3 and 34-8.4 after hearing. | Contract permitted removal under 34-8.3; no 34-85 prerequisite. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skolnick v. Altheimer & Gray, 191 Ill. 2d 214 (2000) (broadly defines injunction under Rule 307)
- Town & Country Utilities, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, 225 Ill. 2d 103 (2007) (statutory interpretation in light of related provisions)
- Chatham Foot Specialists, P.C. v. Health Care Service Corp., 216 Ill. 2d 366 (2005) (superfluity and reference to related provisions in statutory construction)
- Ahmad v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 365 Ill. App. 3d 155 (2006) (administrative review standard and de novo review of law)
- Moore v. Green, 219 Ill. 2d 470 (2006) (statutory interpretation and avoiding redundancy)