Recent Court Decisions

Plaintiffs filed claims against the principal and school board for racial discrimination; violation of their son’s right not to be apprehended or taken into custody; violation of his right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures; and violation of his right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The school board and principal asserted that there are no disputed facts and trial is not necessary. The principal also asserted that she is entitled to qualified immunity, protection from liability and trial.

Regarding the principal, the court found that a trial was necessary. The principal is not entitled to qualified immunity because the rights she may have violated were clearly established and she had actual notice of the standards pertaining to school searches. Additionally, a jury could find that the principal violated the student’s constitutional rights by conducting a search without reasonable suspicion or carrying out a search that was unreasonable in scope

Regarding the school board, the court found that a trial was not necessary because the plaintiffs could not present any evidence to show that the school board acted with deliberate indifference to the rights of the student. The board properly trained the principal and all other employees on proper school search procedures by providing a detailed pamphlet explaining the current laws regarding school searches. The assistant superintendent also reviewed the school’s rules on searches with the principal.

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

Bradley has filed a petition to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The first legal issue in this case is whether all child protective services workers in the United States are subject to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment if they interview a child without parent or guardian consent. The second legal issue is whether the Department of Children and Families’ policies violated the petitioner's fundamental liberty interest in the “integrity of the family” with the use of a picture mobile phone.

While this case applies to child protective services workers, constitutional challenges involving child protective services and school personnel are becoming prevalent in courts. For example, see Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (2015).

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

Plaintiffs sued the school district for alleged violations of NCLB’s choice provision. The School Code does not provide a private cause of action for damages, nor does Illinois recognize the tort of educational malpractice. The Tort Immunity Act further bars such complaints. The purpose of the Tort Immunity Act is to protect local public entities and public employees from liability arising from the operation of government. By providing immunity the Ill. Gen. Assembly sought to prevent public funds from being diverted from their intended purpose to the payment of damages claims.

Read the entire decision here: www.illinoiscourts.gov/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2015/2ndDistrict/2140704.pdf.

Update on the case which serves as a reminder to school officials that nothing online is truly anonymous. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s order requiring the disclosure of the identity of an anonymous poster of allegedly defamatory comments about a county board candidate on a newspaper’s Internet message board.

8/26/2015: Doe’s attorney has filed a motion to postpone the enforcement of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision. This motion will attempt to maintain the anonymity of Doe until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to hear an appeal.

See the information posted in Hadley v. Doe, - N.E.3d--, 2014 WL 1847824, (Ill.App. 2 Dist.,2014) for more background.

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the school officials in this case should not be viewed as law enforcement agents, and the statements made by a young child to the teachers were not given with the “primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.” This decision is important to school officials because the Court recognized that school teachers who ask their students questions about suspected child abuse are not acting as law enforcement officers but instead fulfilling their mandated state duties to keep children safe.