LAURA LASHEVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZION-BENTON TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 2-13-0947
Illinois Appellate Court, Second District
July 7, 2014
2014 IL App (2d) 130947
Illinois Official Reports
(Note: This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.)
In an action by a school psychologist under the Whistleblower Act seeking damages for the retaliation she suffered after reporting a school counselor‘s failure to report an allegation that a student had been sexually abused by a family member, the trial court properly dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by laches, notwithstanding her contention that laches did not apply where she sought no equitable relief, since plaintiff only sought back pay, not reinstatement, and laches is available when a discharged public-sector employee seeks back pay, regardless of whether reinstatement is sought.
Decision Under Review
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County, No. 13-L-230; the Hon. Margaret J. Mullen, Judge, presiding.
Judgment
Affirmed.
Counsel on Appeal
Howard Peritz, of Deerfield, for appellant.
A. Lynn Himes, Kevin B. Gordon, and Parker R. Himes, all of Scariano, Himes & Petrarca, Chtrd., of Chicago, for appellee.
JUSTICE JORGENSEN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Justices Hutchinson and Hudson concurred in the judgment and opinion.
OPINION
¶ 1 Plaintiff, Laura Lashever, appeals from the dismissal, pursuant to
¶ 2 Plaintiff filed her complaint on April 1, 2013. She alleged that in August 2001 she was hired by defendant for the position of school psychologist. In November 2011, she became aware that a student approached a teacher and related having been sexually abused by a family member. The teacher had the student report the alleged abuse to a school counselor. The counselor was legally required to report the alleged abuse to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) (see
¶ 3 Plaintiff alleged that she had previously announced her intent to retire at the end of the 2015-16 school year. As damages for defendant‘s alleged misconduct, plaintiff sought compensation for the salary she would have received under a collective bargaining agreement for the 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15 school years. She also claimed that had she continued to work those years her annual pension benefit upon retirement would have increased by approximately $6,600 and that, based on a life expectancy of 90 years, she was entitled to damages for lost pension benefits totaling roughly $185,000. In addition, plaintiff sought punitive damages. Plaintiff did not seek reinstatement to her position.
¶ 4 Defendant filed a combined motion under
¶ 5 As noted, this appeal is before us for review of the trial court‘s ruling on a motion to dismiss under
¶ 6 In Summers v. Village of Durand, 267 Ill. App. 3d 767, 771 (1994), we observed as follows:
“Courts have devised a rule to be used in applying the doctrine of laches to causes of action brought by discharged public sector employees seeking reinstatement and/or back pay. The rule is that a delay of longer than six months from the date of termination to the filing of suit is per se unreasonable and will justify dismissal on the ground of laches if: (a) the plaintiff can show no reasonable excuse for the delay; and (b) the employer would suffer prejudice by having to pay both a replacement worker‘s salary and a successful plaintiff‘s back wages during the period of delay.” (Emphasis added.)
As authority for that rule, we cited Long v. Tazewell/Pekin Consolidated Communications Center, 236 Ill. App. 3d 967, 969-70 (1992). Plaintiff argues, however, that the rule set forth in Long is limited to suits seeking both reinstatement and back pay (not one or the other). Id. at 969 (“By case law, a six-month per se laches rule has been developed specifically for causes of action such as this seeking reinstatement and back pay following an alleged wrongful termination in the public employment sector.” (Emphasis added.)).
¶ 7 We conclude that the defense of laches is available where a discharged public-sector employee seeks back pay, regardless of whether the employee also seeks reinstatement. Bill v. Board of Education of Cicero School District 99, 351 Ill. App. 3d 47 (2004), supports our conclusion. In Bill the plaintiff originally sought both reinstatement and back pay. After the trial court dismissed the claim for reinstatement, the plaintiff moved for summary judgment on her claim for back pay. The trial court granted the motion, rejecting the defendant‘s argument that the claim was barred by laches. The defendant appealed. The plaintiff argued that, because laches is an equitable defense, it did not bar her claim for money damages. The Bill court disagreed, reasoning as follows:
“[T]raditionally, statutes of limitation were generally applied to legal actions and the laches doctrine was applied to those actions based in equity, [but] such ‘mechanical’ applications are no longer followed. [Citation.] Courts have applied laches to ‘equity-like’ actions, such as mandamus, to quasi-equitable suits, to actions where equitable considerations are at the heart of a claim actually based in law, as well as to purely legal claims. [Citations.] For instance, in Schultheis [v. City of Chicago, 240 Ill. 167 (1909)], the supreme court specifically stated that the laches defense was applicable to pseudo-equitable proceedings at law, such as actions in certiorari and quo warranto. [Citation.] Subsequently, *** the First and Fourth District Appellate Courts each explicitly stated that the laches doctrine is not limited solely to suits in equity and is applicable to cases at law in which a plaintiff seeks back pay for wrongful termination, in addition to reinstatement. [Citations.] This approach finds full fruition in Summers, where the court applied the six-month laches doctrine in an action where only monetary damages were sought. [Citation.] Along these lines, we note that this action began as one seeking reinstatement and back wages; however, the reinstatement action was ultimately dismissed by the trial court, resulting in the remaining claim solely for monetary damages. As a result, we disagree with plaintiff that the six-month laches rule cannot be applied to a public employee case seeking monetary damages in the form of back pay, particularly where the action was originally filed as one seeking reinstatement, as this one was.” (Emphases added.) Id. at 56-57.
¶ 8 Unlike the plaintiff in Bill, plaintiff here never sought reinstatement. Nonetheless, the relaxation of the traditional rule limiting laches to actions based in equity militates against the formalistic approach that plaintiff advocates. “[I]t is prejudice in the sense of having to pay both a replacement worker‘s salary during a former employee‘s delay in challenging his termination and that employee‘s back wages, if his challenge ultimately succeeds, which will justify application of laches to such a suit.”1 Coleman v. O‘Grady, 207 Ill. App. 3d 43, 48 (1990). The prejudice, in that sense, does not depend on whether the former employee is ultimately reinstated.
¶ 9 We also observe, briefly, that there is another aspect to the prejudice resulting from plaintiff‘s delay in filing suit. Although plaintiff‘s complaint indicated that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment for most of the 2011-12 school year, she did not resign from her position until the end of August 2012, when the next school year had just started, thus forcing defendant to replace her services on an expedited basis. Not only did plaintiff leave defendant in a lurch at the start of the school year, but, by waiting until April of the following year to file suit, she might have complicated the process of securing a permanent successor. These circumstances tip the balance of equities even further in defendant‘s favor.
¶ 10 Plaintiff alternatively contends that, even if laches bars her claim for back pay, her lawsuit should still be allowed to proceed because she also sought “front pay.” From our review of the record, it does not appear that plaintiff raised this issue in the trial court. Accordingly, she has forfeited review. See, e.g., In re Estate of Chaney, 2013 IL App (3d) 120565, ¶ 8. Moreover, plaintiff‘s argument on this point consists of nothing more than the
¶ 11 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County is affirmed.
¶ 12 Affirmed.