Hall v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 20 March 1992
• Docket Number: No. 1-89-3295,1-89-3295
• Citation: 169 Ill.Dec. 758,227 Ill.App.3d 560,592 N.E.2d 245
• Parties: , 169 Ill.Dec. 758, 74 Ed. Law Rep. 1223 James R. HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF CHICAGO, Illinois State Board of Education and Harry Graham, Hearing Officer, Defendants-Appellees. First District, Sixth Division
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 245

592 N.E.2d 245

227 Ill.App.3d 560, 169 Ill.Dec. 758,

74 Ed. Law Rep. 1223

James R. HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF CHICAGO, Illinois State Board of Education and Harry Graham, Hearing Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1-89-3295.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

First District, Sixth Division.

March 20, 1992.

Grady, Terrell & Thrall, Valparaiso, Ind. (Larry E. Thrall, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Patricia J. Whitten, Chicago, (Camille E. Willis, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.

Justice LaPORTA delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an appeal from a final judgment of the circuit court in a suit for administrative review (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 110, par. 3-101 et seq.) affirming the decision of the Illinois State Board of Education ordering plaintiff's dismissal.

Plaintiff raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the decision of the hearing officer affirming the dismissal of plaintiff was against the manifest weight of the evidence in the record; (2) whether plaintiff was denied due process and a full and fair hearing because of his inability to confront and effectively cross-examine witnesses; and (3) whether the trial court should have remanded the case to the hearing officer for consideration of newly discovered evidence.

Plaintiff began his employment with the Board of Education of the City of Chicago in 1968 as a full-time substitute teacher under a temporary certificate and subsequently was appointed on a regular certificate as a tenured teacher.

On January 28, 1987, the General Superintendent of Schools for the Chicago Public Schools preferred charges of unsatisfactory conduct and requested plaintiff's dismissal as a teacher. By letter dated January 29, 1987, plaintiff was notified of the charges against him and of the request for his dismissal. Plaintiff was also served with a copy of the written charges and specifications of inappropriate and unprofessional physical conduct in March 1985 and in 1986 with a juvenile male student and with one of his juvenile teacher aides. Plaintiff was further advised that the Chicago Board of Education of the City of Chicago had adopted the request for dismissal pursuant to Section 34-85 of the School Code of Illinois. Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 122, par. 1 et seq.

Plaintiff was notified that effective immediately he was suspended without pay pursuant to section 34-85 of the Illinois School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 122, par. 34-85) and pursuant to section 4-30 of the Rules of the Board of Education of the City of Chicago. In addition, plaintiff was notified of his right to make a written request for a hearing on the charges within ten days. Plaintiff requested a hearing on the charges against him.

The Illinois State Board of Education hearing officer conducted an administrative hearing on the charges on December 16 and 17, 1987, on February 5 and 6, 1988, and on March 5, 1988. On June 8, 1988, the hearing officer issued findings of fact and an opinion that plaintiff had engaged in improper sexual activity of a criminal nature with juveniles and students and denied plaintiff's appeal of the Board's decision for dismissal.

Plaintiff filed a complaint for administrative review in the Circuit Court of Cook County. In his final judgment, the circuit court judge affirmed the administrative decision of the Illinois Board of Education hearing officer, specifically finding the decision was "not against the manifest weight of the evidence" and denied plaintiff's request for remand. Plaintiff appealed.

The charges and specifications against plaintiff adopted by the Board of Education of the City of Chicago on January 28, 1987, and subsequently served on him on February 13, 1987, charged him with "conduct unbecoming a teacher in the Chicago Public School system" during the 1984-85 school year and in 1986. In particular, specifications 1 through 8 charged that during March 1985, plaintiff gave alcohol and marijuana to his male juvenile teaching aide, who consumed the alcohol and smoked the marijuana in plaintiff's presence. Specifications 9 through 18 charged that shortly before April 1, 1985, while at his home, plaintiff and another adult male gave alcohol and marijuana to the juvenile teaching aide and to another male juvenile, who consumed the alcohol and smoked the marijuana, and that plaintiff engaged in sexual activity with the juvenile male and watched while the adult male engaged in sexual activity with plaintiff's juvenile teaching aide. Specification 19 charged plaintiff with "inappropriate sexual interaction" with his juvenile teaching aide in April 1986.

In the administrative proceedings on the charges before Hearing Officer Harry E. Graham of the Illinois State Board of Education, the following evidence was adduced.

Plaintiff testified first as an adverse witness for the Board of Education of the City of Chicago (Board) and later on his own behalf. Plaintiff stated that he had been a teacher since 1968, was certified by the Board in 1975, and had served at ten or eleven schools. Although plaintiff originally testified that all of his ratings had been "excellent" or "satisfactory," he subsequently stated that he had received one "excellent" rating, many "no ratings," and the remainder were "satisfactory" ratings.

Plaintiff stated that he was assigned to Chicago Vocational School (CVS) from September 1984 to September 1986. He taught five classes per day in United States and modern world history. During that time, he had approximately six student aides, who received "service points" for performing such tasks as scoring papers.

Plaintiff testified that he met D.S. in January 1985, and soon thereafter D.S. asked to become one of plaintiff's aides. D.S.'s duties included scoring papers and preparing lists of students who had unexcused absences from plaintiff's classes.

He stated that D.S. went to plaintiff's home on numerous occasions to score papers or to "do chores" such as cleaning and sorting record albums. D.S. was paid for the chores. Usually plaintiff asked D.S.'s mother for permission to have him come to plaintiff's apartment, although sometimes D.S. told plaintiff that he already had his mother's permission.

Plaintiff testified that on an evening in late February 1985, D.S. came to plaintiff's apartment with L.P., a male juvenile. An adult male friend of plaintiff's, Tony Johnson, was already at the apartment. D.S. came by without plaintiff's permission to score papers. Plaintiff and D.S. graded papers while Johnson and L.P., the male juvenile, watched a movie on plaintiff's television in the bedroom. Plaintiff testified that he could not see the bedroom from the kitchen where he and D.S. worked.

Plaintiff testified that he knew L.P., the male juvenile, and Johnson had previously had sexual relations because Johnson told him so in November 1984, when plaintiff first met L.P. Plaintiff was not aware that L.P. was a minor or that he had been a student at CVS.

Plaintiff testified that while Johnson sometimes smoked marijuana in his apartment, neither of the juveniles, D.S. or L.P., had done so. He also testified that he had never seen D.S. drink an alcoholic beverage in his apartment and that when all four were together, Johnson drank alcoholic beverages but D.S. and L.P. had not. Plaintiff also testified that he never engaged in sexual relations with D.S. or L.P. and never saw Johnson engage in sexual relations with D.S. or L.P.

Plaintiff testified that on several occasions in the spring of 1985 he gave both D.S. and L.P. money for car fare when they stopped by his apartment and asked for it.

Plaintiff also testified that in May 1985, he gave his keys to a student named W.B. to get a typewriter from his automobile. D.S. offered to show the other student where plaintiff's automobile was. Plaintiff was subsequently informed that his automobile had been in an accident and was damaged. Plaintiff testified that he filed a complaint against D.S., but the complaint was not part of the record on appeal. The police reports indicated that both D.S. and the other student, W.B., had driven plaintiff's automobile and caused an accident in the school parking lot. Subsequently, plaintiff told D.S. that D.S. could no longer be his aide. Plaintiff testified that D.S. became upset and threatened him.

D.S.'s mother testified that her son had been a good student before entering CVS but that his performance had deteriorated since that time. D.S. did not graduate from CVS because he dropped out of school in December 1986. At the time of the hearing, D.S. lived in Detroit, Michigan and was studying for his GED. D.S.'s mother testified that she did not know why he left CVS. She confirmed that plaintiff had not been her son's teacher.

L.P. testified that he had been at CVS for two semesters but not for the entire 1984-85 school year. L.P. testified that he met plaintiff through D.S. and through another person identified only as "George." On a date which he could not recall but he thought was before Christmas 1985, L.P., D.S. and Johnson were at plaintiff's apartment. L.P. testified that all four "got high" on rum and marijuana, including D.S. and L.P., and plaintiff and Johnson "went down" on D.S. and L.P.

When asked why he did not report the incident, L.P. answered "I never accused James Hall of nothing. I don't know how this come about." However, he testified he did answer questions when police officers came to interview him while he was in the Audy Home. L.P. affirmed that he never accused plaintiff of having sexual relations. L.P. stated that he had never been offered any "deal" for his testimony and that he had not been coerced into testifying. He stated that he had a juvenile charge pending when he was interviewed in the Audy Home, and has since been convicted of criminal sexual assault, his first and only conviction as an adult.

Johnson testified primarily by invoking his Fifth...