Braught v. Board of Educ. of Mount Prospect Public School Dist. No. 57
| Decision Date | 11 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-2113,No. 57,57,83-2113 |
| Citation | 136 Ill.App.3d 486,483 N.E.2d 623,91 Ill.Dec. 277 |
| Parties | , 91 Ill.Dec. 277, 27 Ed. Law Rep. 1195 Joan M. BRAUGHT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 57, and Earl L. Sutter, individually and as Superintendent of School District, and Employee Benefit Claims, Inc., an Illinois corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Wayne Schwartzman & Associates, Chicago (Wayne Schwartzman, Dale D. Pierson, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Murphy & Cope, P.C., Chicago (John B. Murphey, Chicago, of counsel), for Bd. of Educ. and Earl L. Sutter--defendants-appellees.
The plaintiff, Joan M. Braught, filed this action for breach of employment contract in the circuit court of Cook County against the defendants, the Board of Education of Mount Prospect School District No. 57 (Board); Earl L. Sutter, individually and as superintendent of School District No. 57 (Sutter); and Employee Benefit Claims, Inc., and Illinois corporation. The trial court granted the motion of Sutter and the Board to dismiss the complaint as to count I. Plaintiff appeals. The sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court erred in dismissing count I based on its finding that the Board properly accepted plaintiff's resignation and hired a replacement teacher.
On January 5, 1983, the plaintiff filed an eight-count complaint. Count I charged that the Board and Sutter breached her employment contract. It alleged that the plaintiff was a certified, tenured elementary school teacher who had been employed by the Board since 1964; that in July 1982, she received from the Board her teaching assignment for the 1982-83 school year; that on August 25, 1982, she offered to resign; that on or about September 17, 1982, her agent advised Sutter verbally and by letter that her offer to resign was withdrawn and that she was ready, willing and able to resume her teaching duties; and that the Board and Sutter refused to assign her to teaching duties for the 1982-83 school year. Count I sought an order requiring the Board to return plaintiff to her fulltime position as a classroom teacher, and awarding back pay, lost benefits, costs and attorney fees. Counts II through VIII are not at issue in this appeal.
On April 18, 1983, the Board and Sutter filed a motion to strike and dismiss the complaint. Attached to the motion were copies of plaintiff's letter of resignation and her agent's letter declaring her resignation "officially rescinded." Plaintiff's handwritten letter, which was stamped "RECEIVED AUG 30 1982 SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS--57," read as follows:
Please accept my resignation.
/s/ Joan M. Braught"
Also attached to the motion was Sutter's affidavit in which he asserted that the 1982-83 school year commenced on or about August 27, 1982; that plaintiff failed to report to work at that time; that established policy and custom allowed Sutter, as superintendent, to immediately seek and hire a replacement teacher under an annual contract; that upon receipt of plaintiff's letter of resignation, Sutter hired a replacement teacher under a full-year contract; and that on September 20, 1982, the Board acknowledged receipt of plaintiff's resignation.
On August 4, 1983, the trial court granted the defendants' motion to strike and dismiss with prejudice the complaint as to count I, stating: The plaintiff appeals.
The plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss as to count I because Illinois law prohibits a tenured teacher from resigning except by agreement with the Board, and no such agreement existed between the plaintiff and the Board. The School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 122, par. 1-1 et seq.) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
The crux of plaintiff's argument is that the Board did not properly accept her resignation before she withdrew it and, therefore, there was no agreement as required by section 24-14. In support of her position, plaintiff relies in part on the following passage from Corpus Juris Secundum:
"A teacher's contract of employment may be terminated by his resignation, but the resignation, in order to be effective, must be offered by the teacher with intent to terminate his employment, to the board or officer having the power to remove or dismiss, and it must be accepted strictly in accordance with the terms of the offer by the board having the power to accept, acting as board." (78 C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § 206 (1952).)
In her brief, plaintiff omitted the statement which follows that passage:
"Acceptance may be made impliedly by the appointment of another person in the teacher's place, but, where the statute prescribes the procedure for acceptance, the acceptance must be made expressly in accordance with the prescribed procedure." (78 C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § 206 (1952).)
In the instant case, the School...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jacobeit v. Rich Township High School District 227, 09 C 1924.
... ... Amended Complaint [15] that defendants Board of Education of Rich Township High School ... See Moore v. Bd. of Educ., 300 F.Supp.2d 641, 646 (N.D.Ill. 2004) ... 07-5727, 2008 WL 723331, at *6, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20667, at *17 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 14, 2008) ... in law to be those of the principal." Braught v. Bd. of Education, 136 Ill. App.3d 486, 91 ... "The law is clear in Illinois that public employees have no presumptive property interest ... ...
-
Kastel v. Winnetka Bd. of Educ., Dist. 36
... ... Joan KASTEL, Plaintiff, ... The WINNETKA BOARD OF EDUCATION, DISTRICT 36, d/b/a The Winnetka ... reemployment (1) was not within the same school year in which her service was terminated, and (2) ... N.E.2d 516, 520 (3d Dist.1973); see also Braught v. Board of Educ., 136 Ill. App.3d 486, 489, 91 ... Loren Oury, Comment, Public Employee Pension Rights and The 1970 Illinois ... See, e.g., Peters v. City of Springfield, 57 Ill.2d 142, 151-52, 311 N.E.2d 107, 112 (1974); ... ...
-
Travis v. Tacoma Public School Dist.
... ... to do so because neither Shoemake nor the Board of Education had overturned a nonrenewal in ... Nuzum v. Bd. of Educ. of Sch. Dist. of Arnold, 227 Neb. 387, 391, 417 ... App.1976); see also Braught v. Bd. of Educ. of Mount Prospect Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 57, 136 Ill.App.3d 486, 483 N.E.2d 623, 91 Ill. Dec ... ...
-
Raitzik v. Board of Educ. of Chicago
... ... from her employment as a tenured school teacher after receiving an unsatisfactory rating ... to Pulaski Fine Arts Academy, a Chicago public school, and obtained tenure. Robert Alexander was ... arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious." Braught v. Board of Education of Mount Prospect Public hool District No. 57, 136 Ill.App.3d 486, 490, 91 Ill.Dec. 277, 483 ... ...