Piquard v. Board of Educ. of Pekin Community High School Dist. No. 303
| Decision Date | 19 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-92-0503,3-92-0503 |
| Citation | 242 Ill.App.3d 477,610 N.E.2d 757 |
| Parties | , 182 Ill.Dec. 888, 144 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2555, 81 Ed. Law Rep. 1000 Renae PIQUARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PEKIN COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 303, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Wayne B. Giampietro and James B. Dykehouse (argued), Witwer, Burlage, Poltrock & Giampietro, Chicago, for Renae Piquard.
Douglas G. Griffin (argued), William R. Kohlhase, and Dennis R. Triggs, Miller, Hall & Triggs, Peoria, for Bd. of Educ.
The plaintiff, Renae Piquard, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Tazewell County which granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the Board of Education of Pekin Community High School District No. 303 (Board). The plaintiff raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the Board maintained proper seniority lists which were binding upon the plaintiff in a reduction in force; and (2) whether the Board violated the plaintiff's tenure rights when it retained a teacher not qualified to teach health courses and dismissed the plaintiff, who was qualified to teach those courses.
We affirm because we find that the Board properly dismissed the plaintiff pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.
The plaintiff was hired by the Board in August 1979 to teach physical education. The certificate issued by the State Board of Education stated that she was qualified to teach physical education and health. At the time she was hired, physical education and health were separate departments. At least since 1980, the Board has maintained seniority lists in order to keep track of the relative seniority of its teachers. The lists consisted of a master list of all tenured teachers and separate seniority lists of the teachers in each department. The plaintiff was listed on the physical education seniority list from the time she became tenured. However, she was never listed on the health seniority list. Around 1985, physical education and health were combined into one department. Thereafter, the Board continued to maintain a separate health seniority list. The Board also maintained separate seniority lists for other departments which existed when it began keeping the lists even though some of the departments later merged with other departments.
In March 1991, the plaintiff was notified by the Board that she was being dismissed at the end of the school year due to a reduction in force. The Board determined there were too many teachers in the physical education department. It also determined, based on the seniority lists, that the plaintiff was the physical education teacher with the least seniority who was unqualified to fill any other teaching position. Of the 27 teachers on the physical education seniority list, 5 had less seniority than the plaintiff. One of the teachers with less seniority was the Director of Instruction and Personnel who was not subject to layoff. Three of the other teachers with less seniority than the plaintiff were also listed on the seniority lists of the science, English, or guidance departments and were acting as teachers in those departments. Therefore, these teachers were not subject to dismissal. Sandra Burrell was the remaining teacher with less seniority than the plaintiff. Burrell was qualified to teach health and was listed on the health seniority list. Also, the Board determined that Burrell would be needed to teach health during the 1991-92 school year. Accordingly, the Board determined that Burrell would be retained and not dismissed.
On September 13, 1991, the plaintiff filed a complaint for mandamus and declaratory relief seeking reinstatement and back pay. She claimed that her dismissal was in violation of her rights under section 24-12 of the School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 122, par. 24-12).
The Board filed an answer and affirmative defenses which claimed that the plaintiff's dismissal was proper under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement in effect between the Board and the teachers' representative, the Pekin Teachers' Alliance. A copy of the collective bargaining agreement was attached to the Board's answer. The agreement provided:
The agreement stated that "[e]ach teacher's name shall appear on every seniority list for which the teacher is qualified and certified." In addition, the agreement stated that: (1) the Board would post an updated seniority list for all departments no later than the first school day in December of each year; (2) the seniority lists would govern the status of years of service with the school district; (3) any teacher who disagreed with his or her placement on the seniority lists would have 60 days after the posting to initiate a challenge through the grievance procedure; and (4) "[i]f no challenge is initiated, the placement and specified years of service found on the list shall be conclusive." (Emphasis added.)
The Board filed a motion for summary judgment claiming there were no disputed issues of material fact. Plaintiff also filed a motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff agreed with the Board that there were no disputed facts. The trial court granted the Board's motion for summary judgment. The court held that the collective bargaining agreement established the sequence of dismissal. The court also determined that the Board's seniority lists were conclusive as to placement and years of service.
On appeal, the plaintiff first argues that she was improperly dismissed. The plaintiff contends that she should have been retained instead of Sandra Burrell because she had more seniority and was qualified to teach health. The Board responds by arguing that its dismissal action was proper because Burrell was listed on the health seniority list while the plaintiff was not. The Board further asserts that, under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, the seniority lists were conclusive with respect to seniority rights. We agree with the Board's argument.
The primary purpose of the School Code's tenure provisions is to give tenured teachers priority over nontenured teachers and, as between tenured teachers, to give priority to those with the longer length of continuing service. (Birk v. Board of Education (1984), 104 Ill.2d 252, 257, 84 Ill.Dec. 447, 449, 472 N.E.2d 407, 409.) Mandamus is the proper and appropriate legal remedy for a teacher who seeks reinstatement to a position from which she has been improperly removed. (See Walter v. Board of Education (1982), 93 Ill.2d 101, 107- 08, 66 Ill.Dec. 309, 312, 442 N.E.2d 870, 873.) However, mandamus will be granted only in those cases where the plaintiff can demonstrate a clear right to this extraordinary relief. Walter, 93 Ill.2d at 105, 66 Ill.Dec. at 311, 442 N.E.2d at 872.
It is the prerogative of a local school board to consider and compare the qualifications and credentials of its tenured teaching staff when making decisions concerning retention, dismissal and assignment. (Ballard v. Board of Education (3d Dist.1988), 167 Ill.App.3d 224, 228, 118 Ill.Dec. 85, 88, 521 N.E.2d 153, 156.) The board's decisions will be upheld absent a showing of discrimination and unreasonableness. (Ballard, 167 Ill.App.3d at 228, 118 Ill.Dec. at 88, 521 N.E.2d at 156.) Courts will not interfere with the exercise of the powers of a school board, or substitute its discretion for that of the board, unless the board's action is palpably arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious. Peters v. Board of Education (1983), 97 Ill.2d 166, 171, 73 Ill.Dec. 450, 452-53, 454 N.E.2d 310, 312-13.
Here, it is undisputed that the plaintiff was dismissed solely because her name did not appear on the health seniority list. If her name had been on the list, she would have been retained and Sandra Burrell would have been subject to dismissal. Therefore, our initial inquiry is whether the Board's method of maintaining the seniority lists violated the School Code.
Under the School Code, a tenured teacher is said to be in "contractual continued service." (Peters, 97 Ill.2d at 169-70, 73 Ill.Dec. at 452, 454 N.E.2d at 312.) Section 24-12 of the School Code sets forth the procedures which a school board must follow in a reduction in force. It states, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.) Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 122, par. 24-12.
The alternative method of determining the sequence of dismissal provided by a collective bargaining agreement cannot diminish the rights of tenured teachers under the statute. (See Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 48, par. 1710(b); Biggiam v. Board of Trustees (1987), 154 Ill.App.3d 627, 646, 107 Ill.Dec. 120, 132-33, 506 N.E.2d 1011, 1023-24.) To be permissible under section 24-12, any alternative method of dismissal must bear the same characteristics as inverse seniority and must be founded upon objectively verifiable criteria unrelated to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Harbaugh v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago
-
Haag v. Bd. of Educ. of Streator Elementary Sch. Dist. 44, Appeal No. 3–15–0643
...of employees other than certified teachers. See Piquard v. Board of Education of Pekin Community High School District No. 303 , 242 Ill.App.3d 477, 484, 182 Ill.Dec. 888, 610 N.E.2d 757 (1993). Absent such express statutory authority, we are not convinced that the Board in the instant matte......
- Harbaugh v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 10 C 2799