Mohorn-Mintah v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi.
| Decision Date | 24 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-18-2011,1-18-2011 |
| Citation | 178 N.E.3d 254,2019 IL App (1st) 182011,448 Ill.Dec. 930 |
| Parties | Olayinka MOHORN-MINTAH, Petitioner, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF CHICAGO, Janice Jackson, Chief Executive Officer, and The Illinois State Board of Education, Respondents. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Robert E. Bloch and Josiah A. Groff, of Dowd, Bloch, Bennett, Cervone, Auerbach & Yokich, of Chicago, for petitioner.
Ruth F. Masters, of MastersLaw, of Oak Park, and Joseph T. Moriarty and Lee Ann Lowder, of Board of Education of the City of Chicago, of Chicago, for respondents Board of Education of the City of Chicago and Janice Jackson.
Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Ann C. Maskaleris, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for other respondent.
¶ 1 This action stems from dismissal charges filed against Olayinka Mohorn-Mintah. Following the dismissal hearing, the Board of Education of the City of Chicago (Board) adopted the findings of the hearing officer and the recommendation to not dismiss Mohorn-Mintah, but it sanctioned her for misconduct by reducing her back pay by 50% and issuing a Warning Resolution. On appeal, Mohorn-Mintah contends that the Board exceeded its statutory authority in sanctioning her and violated her procedural due process rights. For the following reasons, we affirm the Board's decision.
¶ 3 On December 9, 2016, the chief executive officer of Chicago Public Schools (CPS) approved dismissal charges against Mohorn-Mintah, a tenured teacher at TEAM Englewood Community Academy, pursuant to section 34-85 of the School Code ( 105 ILCS 5/34-85 (West 2016) ). The notice of the charges informed Mohorn-Mintah that the Board had requested she be suspended without pay pending a dismissal hearing. The charges listed in the notice included violations of several "Corrective Action Categories" as set forth in a misconduct/discipline matrix (Chicago Public Schools, Misconduct/Discipline Matrix , https://www.cps.edu/globalassets/cps-pages/staff/employee-engagement/disciplinematrix.pdf (last visited Nov. 10, 2020) [https://perma.cc/DFW6-U5J3]), Board rule 4-4(j) (); violations of the Illinois State Board of Education rules and regulations under the Illinois Educator Code of Ethics and the Standards for All Illinois Teachers (Illinois State Board of Education, Illinois Educator Code of Ethics , https://www.isbe.net/Documents/educator_COE_0311.pdf (last visited Nov. 10, 2020) [https://perma.cc/4ZAT-YJUD]; see generally 23 Ill. Adm. Code part 24); and also conduct unbecoming a CPS employee. The charges specified that Mohorn-Mintah threatened to fight one of her students twice on the same day and that she yelled at two coworkers during the 2015-16 school year.
¶ 4 Mohorn-Mintah requested a dismissal hearing before a mutually selected hearing officer, and one was held on August 16, 2017. At the hearing, the Board called four witnesses, whom Mohorn-Mintah cross-examined, and Mohorn-Mintah called four witnesses, including herself, to testify on her behalf. Because the facts underlying the charges are not in dispute on appeal, we briefly summarize the evidence presented at the hearing below.
¶ 5 Mohorn-Mintah was employed by CPS as a teacher from 2004 to 2016. During those 12 years, she taught at five different schools. From September 2013 to October 2016, she taught science classes at TEAM Englewood Community Academy (TEAM Englewood).
¶ 6 During the 2015-16 school year, D.T., an eleventh-grade student at TEAM Englewood, was in Mohorn-Mintah's science class. On January 4, 2016, D.T. arrived late to class, and Mohorn-Mintah instructed her to stand by the door to await instructions from Mohorn-Mintah, which was the customary policy. D.T. refused to do so, and another teacher, Maria Tsampis, entered the classroom after she heard yelling. Mohorn-Mintah asked D.T. more than once "Do you want to fight me?" Neither of them touched the other. D.T. then left the classroom with Tsampis and went to the counselor's office. Later, Mohorn-Mintah came to the counselor's office and again asked D.T. if she wanted to fight.
¶ 7 There was also some testimony that, prior to the incident with D.T., there was a confrontation between Mohorn-Mintah and a security officer, which took place sometime between October 2015 and January 2016. It resulted in a "mediation circle" for restorative purposes. Mohorn-Mintah also testified that she had never received any de-escalation training.
¶ 8 The parties submitted memoranda following the hearing. On June 29, 2018, the hearing officer issued its findings of fact and recommendation. The hearing officer found that Mohorn-Mintah made the "unwarranted aggressive and provocative comments" to D.T. and that the comments were taunts, rather than threats, to fight. The hearing officer concluded that there was no indication that Mohorn-Mintah actually intended to fight D.T. and that the Board failed to prove misconduct toward coworkers. The hearing officer recommended against dismissal and left it to the Board "to consider other responses to her conduct." Mohorn-Mintah submitted exceptions to these findings to the Board.
¶ 9 On August 22, 2018, the Board issued its order, adopting the hearing officer's findings but additionally finding that Mohorn-Mintah falsely testified that D.T. instigated the altercation. The Board also adopted the recommendation that there was no cause to discharge Mohorn-Mintah because her conduct was not "irremediable." The Board then determined that her conduct and her false testimony warranted a warning resolution and a 50% reduction in the back pay owed to her. The resolution warned her to refrain from using aggressive and hostile language and engaging in physical altercations with students and that she needed to use de-escalation techniques in the future. The resolution also stated that "[d]ismissal will be requested if you fail to comply with the directives for improvement * * *."
¶ 10 This appeal for administrative review of the Board's decision followed.
¶ 12 On appeal, Mohorn-Mintah argues that the Board exceeded its statutory authority when it disciplined her with a 50% reduction of back pay for three reasons: (1) section 34-85 of the School Code requires an award of back pay if the teacher is not discharged; (2) section 34-85 of the School Code does not provide for disciplinary action other than dismissal; and (3) she was not given sufficient procedural due process in her notice of these proceedings.
¶ 13 The statute at issue, section 34-85 of the School Code, outlines the procedure for termination proceedings of tenured teachers. Under the School Code, for cities with over 500,000 inhabitants (Chicago), a tenured teacher may only be removed for cause. 105 ILCS 5/34-85(a) (West 2016). During the pendency of the termination proceedings, the School Code permits the Board to suspend the teacher without pay, but this pay must be reinstated if the teacher is not dismissed. Id. § 34-85(a)(2). To initiate dismissal proceedings under section 34-85, the local superintendent must approve the charges and specifications against the teacher. Id. § 34-85(a)(1). Within 10 days of that approval, the teacher must be served with written notice of the charges and specifications against her. Id. The teacher may then request a hearing before a mutually selected hearing officer. Id. § 34-85(a)(2) -(3). The agreed upon hearing officer conducts the dismissal hearing and determines whether CPS has proved by a preponderance of the evidence the specifications and charges supporting her dismissal. See Beggs v. Board of Education of Murphysboro Community Unit School District No. 186 , 2016 IL 120236, ¶ 53, 410 Ill.Dec. 902, 72 N.E.3d 288.
¶ 14 After the hearing, the hearing officer will issue its findings along with a recommendation as to whether the teacher should be dismissed. 105 ILCS 5/34-85(a)(6) (West 2016). The Board then has 45 days to make its decision. Id. § 34-85(a)(7). "The Board is vested with the final administrative decision on teacher removal, and it is to this decision that we are to defer." Raitzik v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago , 356 Ill. App. 3d 813, 832, 292 Ill.Dec. 427, 826 N.E.2d 568 (2005) ; see 105 ILCS 5/34-85 (West 2016). "[I]f the teacher or principal charged is not dismissed based on the charges, he or she must be made whole for lost earnings, less setoffs for mitigation." 105 ILCS 5/34-85(a)(2) (West 2016). Judicial review of the Board's decision is governed by the Administrative Review Law ( 735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2016)), but review must be initiated in the appellate court. 105 ILCS 5/34-85(a)(8) (West 2016). We do not review the hearing officer's decision but rather that of the Board.
Beggs , 2016 IL 120236, ¶ 61, 410 Ill.Dec. 902, 72 N.E.3d 288.
¶ 15 With this procedure in mind, we turn to Mohorn-Mintah's contentions that the Board did not have the authority to reduce her back pay and that the Board did not give adequate notice.
¶ 17 "The proper standard of review in cases involving administrative review depends upon whether the question presented is one of fact, one of law, or a mixed question of fact and law." Id. ¶ 50. An agency's findings of fact are considered prima facie true and must only be reversed if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. Questions of law are reviewed under the de novo standard. Id. Mixed questions of law and fact, where we analyze the legal effect of a given set of facts, are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. Here, Mohorn-Mintah asks this court to construe section 34-85 of the School Code; thus, we review the issues of statutory authority de novo .
¶ 18 Mohorn-Mintah asserts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Educ. of Chi. v. Moore
...5/34-18 (West 2016) ; Spinelli , 118 Ill. 2d at 405, 113 Ill.Dec. 915, 515 N.E.2d 1222 ; see also Mohorn-Mintah v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago , 2019 IL App (1st) 182011, ¶ 27, 448 Ill.Dec. 930, 178 N.E.3d 254 (finding that "the Board's action to discipline [petitioner] follow......