337 F.Supp. 977 (N.D.Ill. 1972), 71 C 147, Hostrop v. Board of Junior College Dist. No. 515

Docket Nº:71 C 147.
Citation:337 F.Supp. 977
Party Name:Richard W. HOSTROP, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT NO. 515 et al., Defendants.
Case Date:February 01, 1972
Court:United States District Courts, 7th Circuit, Northern District of Illinois

Page 977

337 F.Supp. 977 (N.D.Ill. 1972)

Richard W. HOSTROP, Plaintiff,

v.

BOARD OF JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT NO. 515 et al., Defendants.

No. 71 C 147.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Feb. 1, 1972.

James Pappas, Chicago Heights, Ill., for plaintiff.

Anthony Scariano, Chicago Heights, Ill., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

AUSTIN, District Judge.

This is a suit brought pursuant to the first, fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1981 et seq. Plaintiff is a former chief administrative officer of Prairie State College and defendants are members of the board of the college district, who terminated plaintiff's employment. They are sued individually and as a corporate body.

Before the court is defendants' motion for summary judgment, which the court

Page 978

believes should be considered more properly as a motion t o dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Filed with the court are plaintiff's amended complaint (a prior motion to dismiss having been granted), defendants' motion, two affidavits on behalf of the defendants, and memoranda submitted by both sides. In their memoranda both sides refer to depositions, but none have been submitted to this court.

In his complaint plaintiff alleges that he was fired because of an administrative staff memorandum in which he made recommendations for changes in the Ethnic Studies Program. The memorandum was intended to be confidential, but it is alleged that it was made public by someone other than plaintiff. He contends that his first amendment rights were violated since he was fired solely because of his memorandum and that his fifth and fourteenth amendment rights were violated because he was not given a hearing. This court finds that as a matter of law plaintiff has raised no constitutional claims and therefore the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The most recent Supreme Court case concerning the first amendment rights of public school employees is Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). In that case plaintiff, a high school teacher, sued the board after he was fired for sending to a local newspaper a letter that was critical of the way in which the school board and the superintendent handled proposals to raise revenue. The Court held that unless he knowingly or recklessly made false statements, a teacher could not be dismissed from public employment as a result of his speaking on issues of public importance. The Court noted, however, that factors not present in that case could result in a different finding:

The statements [made by plaintiff] are in no way directed towards any person with whom appellant would normally be in contact in the course of his daily work as a teacher. Thus no question of maintaining either discipline by immediate superiors or harmony among co-workers is presented here. Appellant's employment relationships with the Board and, to a somewhat lesser extent, with the superintendent are not the kind of close working relationships for which it can persuasively be claimed that personal loyalty and confidence are necessary to their proper functioning.

Id. at 569-570...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
4 practice notes
  • 706 F.2d 1435 (7th Cir. 1983), 82-1202, Vail v. Board of Educ. of Paris Union School Dist. No. 95
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    • 19 April 1983
    ...This position has a somewhat familiar ring to it, since it is essentially the position adopted by the district court in Hostrop, 337 F.Supp. 977 (N.D.Ill.1972). In Hostrop, a college administrator argued that he was entitled to a hearing prior to termination. The district court, denying rel......
  • 399 F.Supp. 609 (N.D.Ill. 1974), 71 C 147, Hostrop v. Board of Jr. College Dist. No. 515
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 7th Circuit Northern District of Illinois
    • 23 September 1974
    ...amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Hostrop v. board of Junior College District No. 515, 337 F.Supp. 977 (N.D.Ill.1972). Assuming the accuracy of his well-pleaded allegations for purposes of my decision, I found that, due to his high-level admini......
  • 471 F.2d 488 (7th Cir. 1972), 72-1285, Hostrop v. Board of Junior College Dist. No. 515, Cook and Will Counties, and State of Ill.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    • 21 December 1972
    ...the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 3 Hostrop v. Board of Junior College District No. 515, 337 F.Supp. 977 (N.D.Ill.1972), finding that Hostrop's position as a college president directly responsible to the Board required that he be loyal to the Board......
  • 541 F.Supp. 888 (W.D.Ark. 1981), 78-6041, Russ v. White
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Western District of Arkansas
    • 25 September 1981
    ...like Dr. Russ does not have the same broad academic freedom as a teacher. In Hostrop v. Board of Junior College District No. 515, 337 F.Supp. 977 (N.D.Ill.E.D.1972), the Court concluded in This Court does not think that there need be the same 'vigilant protection' (of constitutional freedom......
4 cases
  • 706 F.2d 1435 (7th Cir. 1983), 82-1202, Vail v. Board of Educ. of Paris Union School Dist. No. 95
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    • 19 April 1983
    ...This position has a somewhat familiar ring to it, since it is essentially the position adopted by the district court in Hostrop, 337 F.Supp. 977 (N.D.Ill.1972). In Hostrop, a college administrator argued that he was entitled to a hearing prior to termination. The district court, denying rel......
  • 399 F.Supp. 609 (N.D.Ill. 1974), 71 C 147, Hostrop v. Board of Jr. College Dist. No. 515
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 7th Circuit Northern District of Illinois
    • 23 September 1974
    ...amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Hostrop v. board of Junior College District No. 515, 337 F.Supp. 977 (N.D.Ill.1972). Assuming the accuracy of his well-pleaded allegations for purposes of my decision, I found that, due to his high-level admini......
  • 471 F.2d 488 (7th Cir. 1972), 72-1285, Hostrop v. Board of Junior College Dist. No. 515, Cook and Will Counties, and State of Ill.
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States Courts of Appeals Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    • 21 December 1972
    ...the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 3 Hostrop v. Board of Junior College District No. 515, 337 F.Supp. 977 (N.D.Ill.1972), finding that Hostrop's position as a college president directly responsible to the Board required that he be loyal to the Board......
  • 541 F.Supp. 888 (W.D.Ark. 1981), 78-6041, Russ v. White
    • United States
    • Federal Cases United States District Courts 8th Circuit Western District of Arkansas
    • 25 September 1981
    ...like Dr. Russ does not have the same broad academic freedom as a teacher. In Hostrop v. Board of Junior College District No. 515, 337 F.Supp. 977 (N.D.Ill.E.D.1972), the Court concluded in This Court does not think that there need be the same 'vigilant protection' (of constitutional freedom......