*1 рrevious for tenure employment purposes, by and also ten- recognizing rights ure in all districts for the teachers so participating employed. plain language of section as amended in an inten- indicates 24— provide tion to employed teachers types joint pro- all education grams the rights same as teachers employed by joint the oldest type program special programs. eduсation “Such employment” —the first sentence said 1967 last most amendment above cer- quoted both tainly special referred to and joint educational programs. fail
I grasp construing 24—11 logic section so as favor employees of special programs education over employees joint of other programs, such as vocational education program involved here. I have no legislature doubt the to add intended rather than to limit. Fur- ther, I fail to see necessity amending exact repetition every sentence in section as the majority position infers, when fact 24— plain language the first sentence as amended made provisions all applicable section 24—11 joint education programs. I indicated, As have I would reverse dismissal and remand this cause for further proceedings. al.,
FRANCES E. KEMNER Plaintiffs-Appellees, et v. NORFOLK AND COMPANY, WESTERN RAILWAY (Monsanto Company, Defendant Defend ant-Appellant Plaintiff, and Third-Party Corporation, v. Willamette Western
Third-Party Defendant). Fifth District No. 5 — 84—0248
Opinion filed March 1985. *2 J., KARNS, dissenting. Coburn, Ryder, D. both Croft & Put-
Kenneth R. Heineman and Bruce Craven, P.C., zell, Belleville, appellant. of Springfield, and James for C. Belleville, Carr, appellees. Rex for delivered the court: opinion
PRESIDING JUSTICE JONES brought against actions Norfolk This case involves consolidated Company (Monsanto) and and Monsanto Railway Company Western out of train derailment and arising injuries allegedly recover trial, in spill Sturgeon, During Missouri. the course an prohibiting Monsanto, court entered maker the chemicals dioxin, media re- containing communicating the news garding the case. contending Monsanto has from this appealed that the order constituted of its impermissible of free necessary showing that was entered without threat was justice administration over- impermissibly broad. We affirm.
In their complaints, 30, 1980, filed on or the cir- about October Illinois, cuit court of St. Clair County, plaintiffs alleged they sustained personal injury property damage exposure as a result of to chemicals contained in a tank railroad car that derailed at Stur- Missouri, geon, chemicals, 1979. January These which were manufactured County, St. Clair were con- allegedly diоxin, taminated with plaintiffs described as “one of the most highly poisonous and toxic Following substances known man.” con- cases, solidation of their plaintiffs joined two filing additional counts for punitive damages, which they again asserted that dioxin is a toxic chemical” that “highly “serious, severe, could cause perma- nent and disabling injuries bodies, to human organs and nervous sys- tems.” Trial these began consolidated casеs on February *3 and was expected to last for year. a 1, 1984,
On March officials from the National Occupa- Institute of tional and Health Safety (NIOSH) held a news in conference St. Louis, conference, Missouri. At that news NIOSH officials announced a former that a employee of St. Louis trucking company who had been exposed dioxin had a developed sarcoma or cancerous tumor. The NIOSH news conference received extensive local media coverage in which it was stated the NIOSH viewed the incidence cancer as “significant,” “suggestive,” “highly suspicious.” While the NIOSH had report indicated that it was possible not determine whether the employee’s cancer was of to dioxin type expo- linked sure, this not in point was made most explicit news accounts story. later, 15, 1984,
Two weeks March Monsanto sent a letter enti- “Background tled for Louis Information St. Area Media” News organizations letter, media in and around St. Louis. The drafted by Bishop, Dan R. director of environmental for Mon- communications santo, set forth in what Monsanto to be inaccuracies perceived NIOSH The letter report. concluded:
“Why Monsanto concerned? We make no secret of the fact that in seeing coverage we have a vested interest that news bаlanced, straightforward and above matters is dioxin-related is- all, truck terminal accurate. We no involvement have in St. sue But a defendant in a lawsuit per currently se. we are Illinois, Sturgeon, Clair several residents which County, Mo., suffer health suffering are will the future they claim from a stemming of dioxin problems alleged exposure and chemical spill. train derailment The hearing seques- presently which is jury, tered, local re- i.e., and listen to they are free view have that ports. Obviously jurors may we’re concerned pronounce- heard NIOSH exaggerated or read some of closing, 1 news In stemming ments from the March conference. keeping make are not interested in we want to it clear that we hope it ‘non-story’ discussing merely alive We publicly. that calling spe- to the basic facts relate your attention announcement, we can sensitize to the March NIOSH cifically careful, need and accurate you responsible to be in the future.” way subjects reported are 17, 1984, News Democrat carried a UPI March the Belleville On Fol- Report.” Aim at Government entitled: “Monsanto Takes story conference, the newspaper a discussion the NIOSH news lowing stated in story part: a attack on the insti 21/2-page
“Monsanto released Thursday said agency’s assump tute’s announcement. Monsanto [sic] flawed, also it feared re tions were said technically press but in a from a ports stemming would hurt its lawsuit standing Missouri, Sturgeon, Norfolk & Western Railroad derailment 10,1979.” on Jan. background infor- of Monsanto’s story
The continued with an account letter, that was concerned including mation Monsanto’s statement have or read County in the St. lawsuit heard jurors Clair NIOSH exaggеrated pronouncements.” “the 19, 1984, hearing requested peti- plaintiffs On March to influence attempting in contempt to have held tion communication governing rules violation the court's the jury an or- plaintiffs sought further outside courtroom. jurors re- release issuing any type refrain from der that Monsanto *4 time the case was during the matter of the trial the subject to lated background to the motion made reference plaintiffs’ tried. The being Monsanto, part that was alleging information letter released of the trial. to the outcome by Monsanto influence ongoing an scheme in opposition of law filed a memorandum subsequently Monsanto motion, to in plaintiffs’ attaching which he by Bishop affidavit stated that it had not that the pub- been Monsanto’s intent letter be story lished in form as a or that the statements in the release lettеr be to jurors communicated of St. Clair County. Bishop stated, rather, that he had set in out Monsanto’s vested interest insur- ing that dioxin was so our reported as to “taint accurately credibility press.” motion, with the At a hearing plaintiffs’ on counsel for Monsanto stated further:
“I can assure that we you mentioning have no intention of litigation this par- extent that it mentioned this memoranda, ticular—these exhibits that are attached tо I our can assure that that I you again. will not occur do believe Mr. conduct was not I Bishop’s contemptuous this Court. think he explains why did, the reason he he why said what he mentioned this litigation, order to have the media under- stand why truthful, it was them to important for but there will not be any further mention of this lawsuit St. Clair County, and as as the long Court is that that assured is cov- ered, I don’t know you how in world can constitutionally us prevent from participating in this public debate[.]
[*] [*] [*] That public lawsuit, debate is not directed to this and we have no intention making any reference to particular litiga- tion.”
In its 2, 1984, April entered the trial court observed awas logical participant nationwide debate well as as that, defendant in the instant cause and while engaging debate, Monsanto had made specific mention liti- present gation. The court recognized Monsаnto’s in the de- participate bate on dioxin but stated that this right did “not extend actions to, calculated or reasonably foreseeable to [sic], jurors influence in progress.” case The court continued: [the] “The debate, action of Monsanto in that the refer- specifically ence to this lawsuit and its jurors par- as a rationale for their ticipation debate, in the constitutes a serious and imminent threat to administration justice integrity of that It process. placed media, stream local linked na- media, tional a linkage of that debate to this in which the possible lenth trial six months to one year and [sic] is not jury sequestered. No one claims has been so in- fluenced; no one this Court requires blind to possibilities. The argument that this action Monsanto was taken in a *5 602 context, affects
background specifically publication, only dаnger of resultant action and not its to the ad- form media linkage of of ministration the media notice this case and justice; can have litigants with the dioxin and positions debate still resulted.”
The court then ruled as follows:
“1. re- any Defendant Monsanto shall not Company statement, interview, lease, background publication or any media, servant, other agent, contact with any employee, contractor, or mention this case or inti- attоrney independent mate its or its facts any particular existence trial or circum- stances or is positions parties concerning judgment it until local, entered this Court. The term “media” includes na- multi-national, tional and and electronic. print 2. taking Defendant Monsanto from Company prohibited action outside this is rea- any courtroom that calculated to-or any juror foreseeable influence in this сause. sonably [sic] engag- 3. Monsanto is in no from Company way prohibited from the ing spe- in the current national debate on dioxin apart cific restrictions of the administra- integrity attributable tion in this case.” justice interlocutory (see from this order 87 Ill. 2d R.
Upon appeal Monsanto contends that the order constituted 307(a)(1)), trial court’s upon restraint its of free in that improper prior right speech factual necessary impermissibly lacked basis and was overbroad. free reconciling right The difficulties inherent the constitutional the constitutional to a trial been doc fair have well speech 427 (1976), v. (See, e.g., umented. Nebraska Press Association Stuart 683, 539, 2791; L. Ed. 96 rel. Miami Her 49 2d S. Ct. State ex U.S. 904; v. Cooper McIntosh 340 So. 2d Publishing (Fla. 1977), ald Co. v. 645, 34 339 N.E.2d Newspapers, (1975), App. Inc. Ill. 3d Rockford any speech free bears 477.) prior It is established (Nebraska its Press сonstitutional presumption against validity heavy 683, S. 539, 49 L. Ed. 2d 96 (1976), 427 U.S. v. Stuart Association to obviate a seri where imposed only necessary 2791) Ct. v. justice. (CBS, Inc. threat to the administration and imminent ous Broad 234; F.2d v. Columbia 1975), 522 United States Young(6th Cir. 102; Miami 497 ex rel. 1974), Cir. F.2d State casting System, (5th 2d 904.) So. (Fla. 1977), v. 340 Publishing Co. McIntosh Herald hand, to control course court, the other has duty trial out prejudicial its protect processes trial and to conduct Ed. 16 L. (1966), v. 384 U.S. Maxwell (Sheppard side influences.
603
Cir.
1507;
Lawyers
(7th
v. Bauer
Chicago
86 S. Ct.
Council
v.
242;
Publishing
rel. Miami Herald
Co.
522 F.2d
State ex
1975),
Thus,
restrictive
904.)
entering
So. 2d
(Fla. 1977),
McIntosh
free
and fair trial
rights
the court must balance the
ex
(State
and fairness
each case
rel.
prevail
to assure that justice
So. 2d
(Fla. 1977),
McIntosh
Publishing
Miami Herald
Co. v.
if it
or if rea-
904),
upheld
and such an order will not be
is overbroad
Nebraska
restraint are available.
alternatives short of
sonable
49 L. Ed. 2d
Press Assoсiation v. Stuart
U.S.
CBS,
2791;
1975),
Inc. v.
Cir.
It is a fundamental that issues in a principle judicial proceeding should be resolved in the courts and not news media or in the then, seeming streets. Monsanto’s that its actions were argument, jus- tified the “massive adverse to by publicity amounts” of Monsanto in is not well past years allegedly improper taken. communication Any with the media the their counsel by plaintiffs or should be countered Monsanto, own, not by of its but with an publicity appropriate to the petition note, however, court the cause. presiding over We publicity complained of Monsanto from by resulting the NIOSH conference was not attributable plaintiffs, and where Monsanto has neither alleged sought nor redress for improper com- munication with the media there by plaintiffs, was no basis for the trial court to extend its order to comment preclude plaintiffs. by
Because of the direct reference made Monsanto here to a pend- case, the ing distinguishable Quinn instant case is from v. Aetna Life Casualty (E.D.N.Y. & Co. 1979), Supp. (2d 1980), 482 F. Cir. aff’d Monsanto, 616 F.2d relied upon by upheld which the court right of the defendant insurance company urg- run advertisements ing While, Quinn, lower awards to the jury general reading public. Aetna in State were pending against actions injury three personal reference was the advertisements no appeared, cоurts at the time advertisements, suits, characterized as of these any made to concern, were di- on issues of expression” public “protected political con- large jurors. By at rather than to public specific rected to the particular its discussion on dioxin to this trast, Monsanto here linked lawsuit, that it was so linked in the sub- newspaper’s with the result to the instant linkage Because subject. sequent story cаn- regarding with the media case, Monsanto’s communication case in as was the general public expression, not characterized as Quinn. as a result of Mon judicial process for harm to the potential of the instant case is jurors comments directed towards
santo’s
nature
ongoing
protracted
more
because of the
pronounced
not
Since
jury
sequestered.
here and the fact thаt the
litigation
this case
offending publicity,
at the time of
progress
trial was
the po
cited Monsanto where
from those instances
distinguishable
to warrant
was insufficient
pretrial publicity
for prejudice
tential
CBS,
522 F.2d
Young (6th
1975),
v.
Cir.
Inc.
(Cf.
restrictive order.
restrictive
harmful to warrant
sufficiently
publicity
234 (pretrial
little
Chase v.
difficulty);
effected with
impaneling
order where
restricting public
(pretrial
Finally, because of this as discussed unique above, we the trial believe court determined that properly alternative measures inappropriate were of the preserve integrity proceed- ing before it. (See generally Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart 539, 49 L. U.S. Ed. S. Ct. for discussion of prior measures shоrt restraint adverse mitigate effects did publicity.) pretrial This case not involve publicity, effect of which could be alleviated voir dire through questioning prospective length and the jurors, trial made it impractical have a se- questered Further, while, notes, as Monsanto jury. jurors would be read, continually admonished trial not to watch or during the listen to courtroom, anything concerning case outside Monsanto’s own actions here in seeking to have its views reflected media give the lie to the efficacy this measure.
For the reasons stated in no opinion we find error in the trial court’s and we affirm the accordingly the circuit court of St. County. Clair
Affirmed.
KASSERMAN, J., concurs. EARNS,
JUSTICE dissenting: This speech, ambiguous freedom which is attained, overbroad, is not necessary object sought to insure namely, a fair trial. Such on speech always suspect. restraints аre (Near v. Minnesota Ed. Ct. (1931), 283 U.S. L. 51 S. *8 606 release, release, characterized, or
625.) The however reoccur, con- likely occasioned the does not injunctive appear order coun- sidering apology given by and assurances court profuse this solely for the The was issued because of injunction sel defendant. the news in the St. area. metropolitan one letter sent to media Louis engage that it is free to in the national While Monsanto assured of lоng on dioxin so as no mention of this case or “intimation” debate made, its existence the trial is one can understand reluctance its or The has Supreme do so while this order is effect. Court injunctive comes to this Court prior expression stated restraint “[a]ny a its against validity. with constitutional ‘heavy presumption’ [Cita- Respondent showing justifica- thus carries a burden of heavy tions.] tion for the a restraint.” a Bet- impositiоn (Organization such 415, 1, 5-6, v. Ed. ter Austin U.S. 29 L. Keefe The has 1578.) “chilling” S. Ct. mere this order a presence effect on conversa- protected speech certainly discourage and would or with the news aspect tion communication media about any “intimate” might dioxin inasmuch as words used perceived the existence of “this case” or “its trial.” limits of under the court’s order permissible speech present those the cоurt Council by Chicago similar to addressed
problems the “no- Lawyers (7th 1975), v. Bauer Cir. F.2d where Illi for the Northern comment” rules of the District Court District scrutinized first guarantees under free speech nois were re overbroad impermissible, amendment and were found to speech. straint on freedom of
Furthermore, injunctive necessary. restraint is not influence action to the outcome Any attempt by party pending in any manner at litigation by communicating jury with the contemptuous pun is a act tempting influence punishment ished court imposition appropriate It of 1961. Ill. Rev. is also a crime under the Criminal Code sanctions. 38, par. Stat. ch. 32—4. short, injunctive prohibits clearly pro
In if what prevent litigants which by well established rules of conduct scribed (CBS, it is jurors, unnecessary. communicating and counsel from If it 7-108.) Ill. 2d R. Young 234; 522 F.2d (6th 1975), v. Cir. more, on freedom impermissible prior is an does speech.