Email

Recent Court Decisions

Recent court and agency decisions involving board work

IASB's Office of General Counsel prepares summaries chosen from the Illinois Supreme and Appellate courts, federal court, agencies, the Illinois Public Access Counselor, and other tribunals issuing interesting decisions. Information in the summaries is limited to a brief synopsis and is not intended for purposes of legal advice. For the complete text of any case cited in this section, go to the Illinois state courts, Illinois Attorney General, or Federal courts finder links.

To search by the names of the plaintiff or defendant or other keyword, use the site search box located at the top of this website. Then filter results by Court Decision.

Questions regarding Recent Court and Agency Decisions should be directed to Maryam Brotine, ext. 1219, or by mbrotine@iasb.com.

Court decisions are listed in order of the date posted, with the most recent shown first.
Reset Filter
  • Open Meetings Act - OMA
    Vote to Approve Closed Session Minutes Must Occur in Open Session
    Case: Public Access Opinion 23-014
    Decision Date: Friday, December 1, 2023
    On October 4, 2023, Requestor submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Counselor (PAC) alleging that the Village of Skokie Board of Trustees (Board) violated section 2(e) of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by approving the closed session minutes from the June 5, 2023 meeting in closed session during its October 2, 2023 meeting.

    Section 2(e) of OMA states that “no final action may be taken at a closed meeting” and that “final action shall be preceded by a public recital” sufficient to inform the public about the business being conducted.

    On review, the PAC noted that the plain language of Section 2(e) indicates that a final vote may not be taken in closed session. Instead, the Board may discuss whether to approve the minutes in closed session and vote in open session, or take a preliminary vote in closed session and a final vote in open session. Further, adequate recital during open session only requires making a motion to approve the closed session minutes of a meeting held on a particular date and does not require revealing details of the underlying matters discussed.

    The PAC found that the Board violated Section 2(e) of OMA. The PAC ordered the Board to include the approval of the June 5, 2023 closed session minutes on the agenda for the next regular meeting and provide the public with adequate recital before voting on the approval of those minutes.

    This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

    Michelle Yang, IASB Law Clerk
     
  • General Interest to School Officials
    Avoiding Pension Contributions by Capping Salary Increases for Teachers Over Age 45 is Prohibited Age Discrimination
    Case: Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Urbana Sch. Dist. No. 116, 18-cv-2212 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 7, 2023)
    Decision Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2023

    In 2005, the Illinois General Assembly made amendments to the Illinois Pension Code. One amendment requires additional employer contributions to the Teacher’s Retirement System (TRS), Illinois’s public-school teacher pension plan, under certain conditions if the teacher’s salary increases more than 6% over the previous year.

    Under the TRS, pension payments depend on the “final average salary,” which is the average of the four highest consecutive salary years over the teacher’s final ten years before retirement. The amendment specifies that for any year used to determine the final average salary, if the teacher’s salary increased more than 6% from the previous year, the employer must contribute the present value of the increase in benefits resulting from the salary increase.

    In 2007, the Urbana School District No. 116 (District) and the Urbana Education Association (Union) ratified a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The agreement included a provision limiting increases in “creditable earnings” to 6% for teachers within 10 years of retirement eligibility. Creditable earnings are defined as all wages, including salary and supplemental pay. Similar provisions were included in later CBAs until it was removed in the CBA ratified in 2020.

    The District enforced the CBA provision by tracking creditable earnings for teachers over age 45 with more than one year of service. Notably, the District did not track the teachers’ hire dates, years of service, or when they would retire.

    In August 2018, the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC) sued on behalf of several teachers whose salaries or supplemental pay was reduced due to the District’s enforcement of the CBA provision. The EEOC claimed that the District’s method of enforcement violated Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) by limiting salary increases based on age. 

    While the District claimed enforcement of the CBA provision based on a teacher’s years of service, the court held that the District discriminated by age. The District’s method of enforcement drew a line at age 45, so a 46-year-old teacher and a 44-year-old teacher with identical credentials and experience were not entitled to identical annual increases in pay.

    Furthermore, the court held that the District did not have an affirmative defense of “identified practice or policy based on a reasonable factor other than age,” commonly referred to as RFOA. The court notes that the RFOA is not available as a defense to a claim of disparate treatment. In addition, federal regulation explicitly states that the ADEA does not excuse the payment of lower wages or salary to older employees on account of age.

    The court granted the EEOC’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the District discriminated by age. The court also awarded back pay to the teachers whose earnings were reduced due to the District’s practices, subject to a final accounting of appropriate back pay.

    Michelle Yang, IASB Law Clerk
     

  • Open Meetings Act - OMA
    Restriction of Public Comment Limited to Established and Recorded Rules
    Case: Public Access Opinion 23-013
    Decision Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023
    On June 16, 2023, Requestor submitted a Request for Review to the Public Access Counselor) PAC alleging that the Board of Education of Wheaton Warrenville Community Unit School District No. 200 (“Board”) had violated Section 2.06(g) of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) during its June 14, 2023 meeting by restricting public comment without authorization from established and recorded rules.

    During the June 14, 2023 meeting, Requestor was interrupted while addressing the Board during the period for public comment after she referenced a district hiring policy. The Board stated that personnel issues must be discussed one-on-one with the board and not during the period for public comment. This was noted in the annotated agenda but not in the Board’s formally adopted policy manual.

    Section 2.06(g) of OMA provides that “any person shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the public body.”

    On review, the PAC noted that the plain language of Section 2.06(g) required that policies be established and recorded. The PAC found that the annotated agenda was not formally adopted, so it was not established and recorded. While the policy manual was formally adopted, it did not include any policy regarding personnel issues. Enforcing a restriction on personnel issues that was not established and recorded went against Section 2.06(g).

    The PAC ordered the Board to refrain from applying unestablished and unrecorded rules to restrict public comment at future meetings and conduct its future meetings in full compliance with OMA.

    This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

    Michelle Yang, IASB Law Clerk
     
  • Freedom of Information Act - FOIA
    Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
    Case: Public Access Opinion 23-012
    Decision Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2023
    On April 25, 2023, Requestor submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the City of Chicago Department of Transportation (Department), seeking copies of specified email metadata between January 1, 2023 and April 24, 2023. The Department did not respond to the request.

    Section 3(d) of FOIA provides that public bodies must either comply with or deny a FOIA request within 5 business days after receiving the request. Denial must be in writing.

    On review, the Public Access Counselor (PAC) found that the Department had violated Section 3(d) by failing to respond to the request. The PAC ordered the Department to provide the Requestor with copies of the responsive records, redacting portions exempt from disclosure, and issue a written denial for any records redacted.

    This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

    Michelle Yang, IASB Law Clerk
     
  • Freedom of Information Act - FOIA
    Duty to Respond to FOIA Requests
    Case: Public Access Opinion 23-011
    Decision Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2023
    On March 15, 2023, Petitioner submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Proviso Township High School District 209 (District) seeking copies of “any and all records related to legal or other kinds of settlements reached by the district or any of its employees from June 30, 2020, to February 28, 2023.” The District did not respond.

    On March 27, 2023, Petitioner submitted a Request for Review with the Public Access Counselor (PAC) alleging that the District failed to respond to her FOIA request. On March 31, 2023, the PAC forwarded a copy of the Request for Review to the District along with a letter asking whether the District has responded to Petitioner’s FOIA request. The District did not respond.

    On April 27, 2023, the PAC sent a second copy of the letter and Request for Review to the District, explaining that the PAC had not received any indication that the District had responded to the FOIA request. The District did not respond. On that same day, Petitioner provided the PAC with a copy of an April 19, 2023, letter from the District indicating she would receive a response to her FOIA request on April 30, 2023. On May 2, 2023, Petitioner confirmed she had not received that response.

    On May 4, 2023, in a telephone call, the District’s FOIA officer at the time confirmed receipt of the March 15, 2023 FOIA request and indicated that the District was working on its response. On May 16, 2023, the PAC re-sent its April 27, 2023 letter to the FOIA officer and asked for an update. The District did not respond.

    On May 25, 2023, June 14, 2023, and June 22, 2023, the PAC left voicemail messages for a new designated FOIA officer for the District, asking her to contact the PAC to discuss the Request for Review. The PAC received no response.

    On July 3, 2023, the PAC e-mailed the District’s FOIA officer asking for an update as to when the District would respond to the FOIA request. On July 10, 2023, she replied via e-mail indicating that she would work with the Superintendent on a response to the request. As of July 12, 2023, the PAC had received no indication that the District had responded to the FOIA request.

    Section 3(d) of FOIA provides that “each public body shall, promptly, either comply with or deny a request for public records within 5 business days after its receipt of the request, unless the time for response is properly extended under subsection (e) of this Section.”

    The PAC concluded that the District violated Section 3(d) of FOIA by failing, within the statutory time for responding to a FOIA request, to provide Petitioner with copies of the requested records or to deny the request in writing in whole or in part. The PAC directed the District to take immediate and appropriate action to provide Petitioner with copies of all records responsive to her request, subject only to permissible redactions, if any, under Section 7 of FOIA.

    This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

    Mary H. Bandstra, IASB Law Clerk