Hegener v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago

• Decision Date: 11 January 1991
• Docket Number: No. 1-87-1528,1-87-1528
• Citation: 567 N.E.2d 566,208 Ill.App.3d 701
• Parties: , 153 Ill.Dec. 608, 66 Ed. Law Rep. 370 Rosemary HEGENER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF CHICAGO and Illinois State Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 566

567 N.E.2d 566

208 Ill.App.3d 701, 153 Ill.Dec. 608,

66 Ed. Law Rep. 370

Rosemary HEGENER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF CHICAGO and Illinois State Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1-87-1528.

Appellate Court of Illinois First District, Fifth Division.

Jan. 11, 1991.

Patricia J. Whitten, Asst. Atty. of Chicago, Camille E. Willis, Bd. of Educ. of the City, Chicago, for defendants-appellees.

Mildred F. Haggerty, Haggerty & Koenig, Chartered, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.

Justice GORDON ^* delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Rosemary Hegener, a tenured high school teacher, appeals from the trial court's order, on administrative review, affirming the decision of the Illinois State Board of Education (hereafter "State Board") to dismiss her as a teacher for the Chicago Board of Education (hereafter "Chicago Board") because of "conduct unbecoming a teacher." She contends that the conduct in question did not constitute sufficient "cause" for dismissal. She also contends that even if the conduct would have been sufficient cause, it was remediable and, because she was not given the proper written warning, her dismissal was improper. Though we find sufficient evidence to support the finding of cause, we reverse on the basis that the cause was remediable and, without the proper written warning, the State Board lacked jurisdiction to dismiss her.

On July 18, 1984, the Chicago Board initiated proceedings to dismiss plaintiff as a teacher in the Chicago Public School system, charging her with "conduct unbecoming a teacher," including having improper sexual contacts with one former and one current student. The specific conduct which formed the bases for the charge included:

1. From April to approximately December, 1982, plaintiff had an inappropriate and unprofessional relationship with a 17 year old female, subsequently identified as A.P., beginning while the girl was a student and continuing after her graduation, including:

A. Buying the girl numerous gifts;

B. Treating the girl to outings at numerous restaurants C. Frequently telephoning the girl for social reasons totally unrelated to any legitimate professional purpose;

D. Frequently sending and giving her letters and cards of a social and personal nature;

E. Offering the girl a credit card;

F. Frequently persuading the girl to spend the night at her residence;

G. "Rigging" a school event in order to ensure that the girl would win a prize; and

H. Fondling, caressing and touching the girl's breasts during an overnight stay at her residence.

2. During the 1982-83 and 1983-84 school years, plaintiff had an inappropriate and unprofessional relationship with a 14 year old female student, subsequently identified as L.R., including:

A. On one occasion, kissing the girl on the mouth while on school premises;

B. On one occasion, caressing, stroking and rubbing the girl's legs and thighs while on school premises and in the presence of various students and staff persons;

C. On one occasion, hugging and kissing the girl, fondling her breasts, and addressing her with romantic terms of endearment;

D. Touching and stroking the girl's hair and holding hands with the girl while on school premises;

E. Frequently driving the girl to and from school;

F. Spending unusual amounts of time with the girl, both inside and outside school;

G. Frequently persuading the girl to visit her residence, sometimes to spend the night;

H. Purchasing numerous gifts for the girl; and

I. Treating the girl to meals at restaurants.

Charging that this conduct was "irremediable," the Chicago Board served notice on plaintiff, without first providing the written warning that would have been required had the conduct been deemed remediable (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 122, par. 34-85), and suspended her from teaching until a hearing could be held by the State Board on her dismissal.

The Hearing Before the State Board

Commencing October 3, 1984, a hearing was conducted by a hearing officer appointed by the State Board. The evidence at the hearing disclosed that plaintiff, a married woman with two sons, was a tenured physical education teacher who first began working for the Chicago Board in 1962. Her assignments had included stints at Francis Parker School from 1962 to 1964, Carl Schurz High School from 1964 to 1970 and, after a six year maternity leave, Lucy Flower High School from 1976 until her suspension in 1984. While at Lucy Flower High School, she received an "excellent" teaching rating for each of her first four years and a "superior" rating, the highest possible rating in the Chicago Public School system, for each of the remaining years up until the date of her suspension. Additionally, she served as chairperson of the physical education department from 1980 to 1984. The conduct which formed the bases of the charge against plaintiff allegedly occurred from 1982 to 1984.

It is not disputed that during the time plaintiff taught in the Chicago Public School system, she was generally well regarded as a committed teacher, often participating in such extracurricular activities as senior prom, graduation luncheon and color guard, and developed personal friendships with many of her students. A number of these friendships continued after the students graduated: Her activities with these students included going on joint shopping trips, giving gifts, privately dining with students, and having students visit and, at times, remain overnight at her home. At the hearing, plaintiff explained these relationships:

"I felt that I was trying to be what I did not have growing up myself. I wanted to make myself an available figure so that they had someone to talk to if they had a problem that could not be discussed with a family member or even a friend who might tell. I wanted to be Several of plaintiff's former students testified on her behalf and told how they valued their friendship with her. Prior to receiving notice of the charge involved in this case, plaintiff was never advised that any of these relationships were inappropriate or unprofessional.

[153 Ill.Dec. 613] someone who would be there in case no one else possibly could be there. I wanted to be a support system. I wanted to be someone that they could trust and know that whatever they told me was going to go no further. * * * I liked them."

As indicated, the relationships which were the bases for the charge for which plaintiff was dismissed developed while she was a teacher at Lucy Flower High School. Lucy Flower is a four year high school located on the West Side of Chicago. Only female students were enrolled at Lucy Flower until 1982, when the first male student was admitted. The evidence at the hearing was replete that during the time that plaintiff was teaching at Lucy Flower it was not uncommon to see teachers holding the hands of students or offering them occasional transportation to and from school. The evidence showed that it was relatively commonplace for students to exhibit demonstrative affection to their teachers and to form interpersonal (one on one) attachments with them. Students would often assist specific teachers and regularly spend time in their company outside of actual classroom hours. Also several teachers were shown to have given small gifts to students at various times. And, there was evidence that in at least one instance, a teacher, other than plaintiff, asked a student to stay overnight at her house. There was no evidence of any prior disciplinary action taken against any of these teachers or students.

The Relationship With L.R.

Plaintiff's relationship with L.R., though later in time than her relationship with A.P., triggered the investigation which led to the charge of "conduct unbecoming a teacher" and therefore will be described first. The formal investigation concerning plaintiff's relationship with L.R. was precipitated by a November 29, 1983 letter, prepared by Phyllis Banks, a physical education teacher at Lucy Flower, accusing plaintiff of engaging in lesbian conduct with L.R.

According to plaintiff's testimony, her relationship with L.R. began late in May of 1983 when L.R., who was never enrolled in any of plaintiff's classes but who knew about plaintiff's willingness to offer advice to students through conversations with her cousins and friends, telephoned plaintiff to seek dating advice about attending a dance with a certain boy. According to L.R.'s testimony, she first met plaintiff in June of 1983 through friends and cousins when she began "hanging around" the gym between classes. Thereafter, the relationship developed into a personal friendship.

The alleged incident which triggered the accusation of sexual impropriety between plaintiff and L.R. occurred on June 15, 1983, shortly before school let out for the 1982-83 school year. Several witnesses, including Banks, Robert Ogilvie and Demetrius Armstrong--who were physical education teachers at a vocational school which shared Lucy Flower's gymnasium facilities, and two students, S.W. and P.L., testified that they saw plaintiff and L.R. in a compromising position in the gymnasium office, which was shared by four different teachers, while school was in session and while several people were present. Though their accounts varied, Banks, Armstrong, S.W. and P.L. essentially stated that while L.R. sat on the window sill fully clothed with her legs spread, plaintiff stood between her legs, with her back to the girl, and either massaged the girl's thighs or fondled the girl's hair or ears while the girl played with plaintiff's hair. Ogilvie, who initially did not testify concerning the incident but who then recalled it upon prompting by the school board's attorney, stated that while L.R. sat on a desk in the office, plaintiff stood in front of L.R. with her arms around L.R.'s waist. According to these witnesses' collective testimony, this incident took place in a relatively small space, during a...