Morris v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago

9 Citing cases

  1. Board of Education v. Harris

    578 N.E.2d 1244 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)   Cited 13 times

    is also inapplicable (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 122, par. 34-85) if the causes for dismissal have been the subject of a remediation plan developed under article 24A of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 122, par. 24A-1 et seq.); however, no plan had been developed for Harris. • 4 The statutory written warning, when required, must be sent by or at the direction of the local board and must state causes that may result in charges leading to dismissal; a written warning from a principal without prior local board approval is insufficient. ( Litin v. Board of Education (1979), 72 Ill. App.3d 889, 893, 391 N.E.2d 62, 64-65; cf. Stratton v. Wenona Community Unit District No. 1 (1990), 133 Ill.2d 413, 551 N.E.2d 640.) If insufficient written warning is given to a tenured teacher prior to dismissal proceedings, the local board has the burden of proving not only that causes for dismissal existed but also that those causes were irremediable. ( Parkman, 160 Ill. App.3d at 773, 513 N.E.2d at 847; Morris v. Board of Education (1981), 96 Ill. App.3d 405, 411-12, 421 N.E.2d 387, 392.) If the local board fails to prove irremediability in such a case, it is deprived of jurisdiction to seek dismissal of the teacher. Parkman, 160 Ill. App.3d at 773, 513 N.E.2d at 847; Chicago Board of Education v. Payne (1981), 102 Ill. App.3d 741, 749, 430 N.E.2d 310, 316.

  2. Fadler v. State Board of Education

    153 Ill. App. 3d 1024 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 25 times
    Finding the first prong of the test met where conduct was "harmful to the reputation of and faith in the faculty and school"

    • 5 Whether causes for dismissal are remediable is a question of fact with the initial determination resting with the board. ( McBroom v. Board of Education (1986), 144 Ill. App.3d 463, 473, 494 N.E.2d 1191, 1198; Morris v. Board of Education (1981), 96 Ill. App.3d 405, 411, 421 N.E.2d 387, 392.) The board's decision will not be overturned unless the reasons given for dismissal are against the manifest weight of the evidence or the board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

  3. Nagle v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees

    No. 96 C 4150 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 21, 2000)

    The Board is the only remaining defendant as to Count III. Plaintiff complains that the Board, primarily through Vallas, removed Nagle from her position as Principal without any notice and without affording Nagle an opportunity to respond. Nagle argues that the Board attempted to have Nagle resign from her position and when she did not the Board drafted false charges against her. Nagle argues that her conduct was remediable and did not constitute grounds for discharge until after a warning and an opportunity to remediate had been offered pursuant to McCutcheon v. Board of Eudcation, 94 Ill. App.3d 993 (1st Dist. 1981) cert. denied 455 U.S. 1018 (1982);Morris v. Board of Education, 96 Ill. App.3d 405 (1st Dist. 1981) and other similar cases. Plaintiff offers no facts in support of her remediation argument.

  4. Board of Education v. Box

    191 Ill. App. 3d 31 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 13 times
    Reversing hearing officer and holding that the teacher's conduct was unprofessional physical conduct; four students testified the teacher touched their buttocks and breasts; one student testified the teacher looked inside her blouse; one eyewitness student observed the teacher touch the five girls' buttocks when they would ask questions and that he kept his hand there until he completed his answers; another student eyewitness testified that he observed the teacher put his arm around a girl and then touch her chest near the nipple area; two parents testified that their daughters either had trouble sleeping and did not want to go to school or had fears about male teachers and refused to go on a field trip; the teacher's credibility had been impeached by some of his testimony

    The board's decision will not be overturned unless the reasons given for dismissal are against the manifest weight of the evidence or the board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Morris v. Board of Education (1981), 96 Ill. App.3d 405, 411, 421 N.E.2d 387. The remediability tests established in Gilliland and Argo-Summit are essentially the same.

  5. Bd. of Education v. State Bd. of Education

    160 Ill. App. 3d 769 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)   Cited 11 times

    Moreover, the inoculation team arrived two days early without notice, and the Board of Health failed to deliver the consent forms before May 18. • 11 We hold that there was overwhelming evidence to support the hearing officer's finding that the causes charged and proved against Parkman were remediable in nature since plaintiff failed to establish that Parkman's conduct severely damaged the students, faculty or school, or was such that it could not have been corrected if a warning had been given. As a result, the failure of plaintiff to provide a statutory warning to Parkman deprived it of jurisdiction to discharge her. ( Grissom v. Board of Education (1979), 75 Ill.2d 314, 388 N.E.2d 398; Aulwurm v. Board of Education (1977), 67 Ill.2d 434, 367 N.E.2d 1337; Morris v. Board of Education (1981), 96 Ill. App.3d 405, 421 N.E.2d 387.) The order previously entered by this court staying the trial court order awarding back pay is hereby vacated.

  6. Board of Education v. State Board of Education

    138 Ill. App. 3d 947 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)   Cited 13 times
    Explaining that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy the second prong of the remediability test if it took only a promise never to engage in the improper conduct again, and that the more appropriate focus in cases alleging immoral conduct is not whether the conduct itself could have been corrected by a warning, but whether the effects of the conduct could have been corrected

    "The test in determining whether a cause for dismissal is irremediable is whether damage has been done to the students, faculty or school, and whether the conduct resulting in that damage could have been corrected had the teacher's superiors warned [him]." The test has been applied to a variety of fact situations in which the complained-of conduct has concerned either deficiencies in teaching performance (see, e.g., Grissom v. Board of Education (1979), 75 Ill.2d 314, 388 N.E.2d 398; Aulwurm v. Board of Education (1977), 67 Ill.2d 434, 367 N.E.2d 1337; Morris v. Board of Education (1981), 96 Ill. App.3d 405, 421 N.E.2d 387; Board of Education v. State Board of Education (1980), 82 Ill. App.3d 820, 403 N.E.2d 277) or corporal punishment. (See, e.g., Board of Education v. State Board of Education (1983), 99 Ill.2d 111, 457 N.E.2d 435; Gilliland v. Board of Education (1977), 67 Ill.2d 143, 365 N.E.2d 322.) However, we have found no Illinois cases which have applied the remediability test to a fact situation in which the complained-of conduct concerns alleged immoral acts between a teacher and student.

  7. Szabo v. Board of Education

    117 Ill. App. 3d 869 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)   Cited 9 times

    (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 122, par. 24-12; Morris v. Board of Education (1981), 96 Ill. App.3d 405, 410-11, 421 N.E.2d 387.) In furtherance of the goal of protecting tenured teachers, the School Code provides that:

  8. Board of Education v. Illinois State Board of Education

    112 Ill. App. 3d 696 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)   Cited 1 times

    "Causes, remediable when considered alone, will be deemed irremediable where combined with other remediable causes if continued over a long period of time during which the teacher refuses or fails to remedy them. [Citations.] Accordingly, where no statutory warning has been given the evidence presented at the hearing on the charges must not only prove that the causes for discharge existed, but it must also be shown by competent substantial evidence that the causes were not remediable." ( Morris v. Board of Education (1981), 96 Ill. App.3d 405, 411, 421 N.E.2d 387, 392.) Morris therefore requires that the board prove by competent and substantial evidence that the cause for discharge is not remediable.

  9. Chicago Bd. of Education v. Payne

    102 Ill. App. 3d 741 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 24 times
    Finding that possession of marijuana outside of school was irremediable and that hearing officer erred in finding to the contrary

    Where no warning is given, the Board's evidence must prove that the teacher's conduct is irremediable. If the Board fails to meet this evidentiary burden, it is deprived of jurisdiction to terminate a teacher's employment. ( Morris v. Board of Education (1981), 96 Ill. App.3d 405, 411-13, 421 N.E.2d 387.) The question of remediability is for the Board in the first instance, and its decision will not be disturbed absent a showing that it is arbitrary and capricious. ( Morris.