Ford v. University of Illinois Bd. of Trustees

• Decision Date: 19 December 1977
• Docket Number: No. 77-295,77-295
• Citation: 55 Ill.App.3d 744,371 N.E.2d 173,13 Ill.Dec. 478
• Parties: , 13 Ill.Dec. 478 Eugene FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 173

371 N.E.2d 173

55 Ill.App.3d 744, 13 Ill.Dec. 478

Eugene FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 77-295.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.

Dec. 19, 1977.

Leonard Karlin, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.

Keck, Cushman, Mahin & Cate, James T. Otis and Robert E. Arroyo, Chicago, for defendants-appellees.

McGLOON, Justice.

Pursuant to two one-year contracts, plaintiff was hired by the University of Illinois Circle Campus (hereinafter referred to as university) as coordinator of the Dual Enrollment Program, a program designed to facilitate articulation between the university and Malcolm X. College. During the term of plaintiff's contracts, September 1, 1973 to August 31, 1975, the Dual Enrollment Program was realigned with other university programs. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that such realignment resulted in downgrading the Dual Enrollment Program and a lowering of plaintiff's rank within the administrative chain of command and a consequent breach of his contract of employment. Pursuant to defendants' motion, the trial court ordered the complaint dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

Plaintiff now appeals from this order and contends that when an employee is engaged to fill a particular position, any unjustified reduction in rank or material duties of the employee is a violation of the contract of employment.

We affirm.

In his complaint plaintiff alleged that as coordinator of the Dual Enrollment Program he was originally to report directly to the Staff Administrator to the Chancellor; that in July of 1974 he was ordered to report to Dr. Patricia McFate, Associate Vice Chancellor of the Academic Support Program; and that in January of 1975 he was advised to report and be accountable to the director of the Educational Assistance Program, a branch of the Academic Support Program. Plaintiff alleged that the above reorganization was effected over his objection and concluded that it resulted in a downgrading and phasing out of the Dual Enrollment Program which reflected negatively on his professional capacities and lessened his opportunities for advancement in contravention to his contract of employment. Plaintiff further alleged that he filed a grievance with the Professional Advisory Committee, a committee established to set up Personnel Policy Guidelines for academic, administrative and professional employees. Plaintiff alleged that this procedure was an arbitration process which was adopted as refined by the Chancellor of the university. The complaint also reflected that after a hearing the Professional Advisory Committee recommended that either the Dual Enrollment Program be reassigned to an appropriate administrative or academic unit, or that the Dual Enrollment Program be terminated and that "a concerted effort be made to reassign Mr. Ford to an appropriate administrative position at the University of Illinois Circle Campus so that his knowledge, education and experience, all of which seem to be singularly pertinent to this urban university, would not be lost to the University of Illinois Circle Campus." The Chancellor did not respond to the recommendations of the Board, but instead notified the plaintiff that he was terminated as of August 31, 1975, the termination date of his written contract. Plaintiff concluded his complaint requesting the trial court to order the defendants to carry out the mandate of the arbitration.

The question we must decide is whether plaintiff's complaint states a cause of action. In deciding this question, all facts properly pleaded as well as all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from these facts must be accepted as true. (Miles Homes, Inc. of Illinois v. Mintjal (1974), 17 Ill.App.3d 642, 307 N.E.2d 724; Psyhogios v. Village of Skokie (1972), 4 Ill.App.3d 186, 280 N.E.2d 552.) However, this court will disregard conclusions unsupported by allegations of fact (Kuch and Watson, Inc. v. Woodman (1975), 29 Ill.App.3d 638, 331 N.E.2d 350), and will affirm the order of the trial court unless plaintiff's complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action. Bauscher v. City of Freeport (1968), 103 Ill.App.2d 372, 243 N.E.2d 650; Zamouski v. Gerrard (1971), 1 Ill.App.3d 890, 275 N.E.2d 429.

As we review plaintiff's complaint, we note two possible theories under which plaintiff seeks recovery. The first of these theories is based upon the defendants' failure to follow the recommendations of the Professional Advisory Committee (hereinafter referred to as PAC). Indeed, the relief requested in plaintiff's complaint is that the trial court order the defendants to carry out the mandate of the Professional Advisory Committee. The pertinent allegations in the complaint are that plaintiff presented a grievance to the PAC; that the PAC had established an arbitration process for grievances; and that this arbitration process was "adopted as refined by the Chancellor of the University." Where plaintiff makes the above allegations in his complaint he also cites exhibits "H" and "I" which were attached to the complaint. Exhibit "H" is a letter from the Chancellor of the University of Illinois to the chairman of the PAC which outlined the scope and purpose of the PAC. Exhibit "I" is a later letter from the Chancellor in which the Chancellor, in pertinent part, outlined and put into effect an interim grievance policy involving the PAC. In both exhibits the Chancellor indicated that the grievance policy and...