Courtney v. Board of Ed. of City of Chicago
| Decision Date | 28 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 56620,56620 |
| Citation | 286 N.E.2d 25,6 Ill.App.3d 424 |
| Parties | . Rabens, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF CHICAGO, a body politic and corporate and James E. Redmond, General Superintendent of Schools of the Board of Education of the City of Chicago, Defendants-Appellees. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fourth Division |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Winkler & Fornelli, Chicago (Harry G. Fins, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
James W. Coffey, Chicago (John J. Dillon, Richard E. Girard, Chicago, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiffs, Harvey T. Courtney and Seymour R. Rabens, filed a sworn complaint on March 30, 1971, for a declaratory judgment against the Board of Education of the City of Chicago and the General Superintendent of Schools in which they sought a determination and declaration of their right to immediate appointment as school principals in the school system. The defendants filed a motion to strike the complaint and to dismiss the action which was granted, and the plaintiffs appeal.
The pertinent facts, as set forth in the complaint, can be stated briefly. For over 15 years the plaintiffs have been employed as teachers by the Board of Education. On November 24, 1967, they took the principal's examination of the Board; and along with 77 others passed the written and oral portions and were issued principal's certificates. On August 25, 1970, another group of persons took the principal's examination, and on December 17, 1970, a list of successful candidates was issued. In the three and one-half months between the issuance of the results of the 1970 examination and the filing of the complaint 23 openings for positions as principals were filled by persons certified from the 1970 group of examinees while the plaintiffs were bypassed. In the final paragraph of the complaint, the plaintiffs allege, 'The action of the defendants towards the plaintiffs is arbitrary and discriminatory, in violation of the spirit of the statutes and rules hereinabove set forth, and contrary to due process of law and equal protection of the laws guaranteed to the plaintiffs by the Illinois Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'
The standards which must be applied in testing the sufficiency of a complaint are well established. Section 33(1) of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, Ch. 110, par. 33(1)) provides in part, 'All pleadings shall contain a plain and concise statement of the pleader's cause of action * * *' however, according to Section 42(2) of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, Ch. 110, par. 42(2), 'No pleading is bad in substance which contains such information as reasonably informs the opposite party of the nature of the claim or defense which he is called upon to meet.' For the purposes of a motion to dismiss all well pleaded facts and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom must be taken as true. Acorn Auto Driving School v. Bd. of Educ., 27 Ill.2d 93, 187 N.E.2d 722. In determining whether a complaint states facts or conclusions, the complaint must be considered as a whole and not in its disconnected parts. Stenwall v. Bergstrom, 398 Ill. 377, 75 N.E.2d 864.
The intent of the sections on pleading in the Civil Practice Act was to escape from the formality and rigidity of the common law requirements. Section 33(3) of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, Ch. 110, par. 33(3)) requires that 'Pleadings shall be liberally construed with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties.' A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it clearly appears that no set of facts could be proved under the pleadings which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Louis v. Barenfanger, 81 Ill.App.2d 104, 226 N.E.2d 85.
Section 34--84 of the School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, Ch. 122 par. 34--84) provides in part that 'Appointments and promotions of teachers, principals and other educational employees shall be made for merit only * * *' Section 4--22 of the rules of the Board of Education of the City of Chicago declares that 'All assignments of teachers and principals shall be made by the General Superintendent of Schools from the eligible lists.' Section 4--24(b) of the same rules states 'Certificates of Principals shall expire at the end of six years from the date of examination unless the holder shall have been assigned under such certificate as principal or to some position equal or superior to the position of principal.'
The record shows that the persons who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaiserman v. Bright
...complaint must be construed as a whole rather than separately considering its disconnected parts. Courtney v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago (1972), 6 Ill.App.3d 424, 286 N.E.2d 25. Under these standards, we believe that Count XXVII of the second amended complaint properly allege......
-
Perlin v. Board of Ed. of City of Chicago
...there are no facts which would entitle plaintiffs to relief for the dismissal to be warranted. (Courtney v. Board of Education of City of Chicago (1972), 6 Ill.App.3d 424, 286 N.E.2d 25.) On review, the allegations must be interpreted in the light most favorable to plaintiffs in determining......
-
Parkway Bank & Trust Co. v. City of Darien
...because no set of facts could be proved under the pleadings which would entitle plaintiffs to relief. See Courtney v. Board of Education, 6 Ill.App.3d 424, 425, 286 N.E.2d 25 (1972). Count III in substance purports to state a cause of action under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.......
-
Webster v. Redmond, s. 78-1978
...Webster's case, which has not been challenged by plaintiff.Although this case is currently Sub judice, we need not await its outcome. As in Courtney the issue involved is priority of consideration as opposed to entitlement to position.13 Besides having a basis in state statutory or case law......