Rosas v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi.
| Decision Date | 17 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-2778 |
| Parties | IRMA ROSAS, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO; JANICE K. JACKSON; STATE OF ILLINOIS; ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; CARMEN I. AYALA; MIGUEL CARDONA; MARTY WALSH; CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL 1, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO; and JESSE SHARKEY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In her governing Third Amended Complaint ("Complaint," [90]), Plaintiff brings suit against Defendants the Board of Education of the City of Chicago ("Board"); Janice Jackson ("Jackson"), in her official capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Chicago Public Schools; the State of Illinois ("State"); the Illinois State Board of Education ("ISBE"); Carmen Ayala ("Ayala"), in her official capacity as Illinois State Superintendent of Education; Miguel Cardona ("Cardona"), in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Education; Marty Walsh ("Walsh"), in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor; Chicago Teacher's Union, Local 1, American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO ("CTU"); and Jesse Sharkey ("Sharkey"), in his official capacity as President of CTU.1 Currently before the Court are CTU and Sharkey's motion to dismiss [110]; the State and ISBE's motion to dismiss[112]; the Board's motion to dismiss [113]; and Cardona and Walsh's motion to dismiss [115]. For the reasons explained below, CTU and Sharkey's motion to dismiss [110] is GRANTED; the State and ISBE's motion to dismiss [112] is GRANTED; the Board's motion to dismiss [113] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; and Cardona and Walsh's motion to dismiss [115] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against the Board for Title VI discrimination and retaliation (Counts IV and V) remain in the case. All other claims and parties are dismissed for the reasons explained below.
In view of the multiple prior attempts that Plaintiff has had to construct viable pleadings, if Plaintiff wishes to further amend her Complaint to add claims or parties or make any other changes to her pleading, she must file a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint by June 18, 2021. Plaintiff must limit her motion to 15 pages as required by Local Rule 7.1, unless she receives prior approval of the Court. Plaintiff also must attach a copy of the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint to her motion. If Plaintiff chooses to seek leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, she is advised that a complaint need contain only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [she] is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although the Court does not penalize Plaintiff for the length of her current Complaint (699 paragraphs over 156 pages, plus over thirty pages of exhibits), it agrees with Defendants that Plaintiff's decision to include so much factual detail, in chronological order and without discussion of which facts are important to particular claims and defendants, makes it difficult to assess the sufficiency of Plaintiff's pleading. Plaintiff would assist the Court by focusing less on factual details and more on summarizing her theory of how and why each Defendant has violated the law. After reviewing any proposed amended complaint, the Court will determine whether to grant leave to amend or, alternatively, it may require Plaintiff to proceed on the remaining claims from the prior operative complaint ifleave to amend appears to be futile. If Plaintiff chooses to stand on her existing complaint, a joint status report that includes a proposed discovery plan is due no later than June 25, 2021.
The following facts are drawn from the Complaint [90]. All well-pled facts are presumed to be true for purposes of Defendants' motions to dismiss. See White v. United Airlines, Inc., 987 F.3d 616, 620 (7th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff identifies as Chicana, a woman of Mexican origin or descent. She began teaching for Chicago Public Schools ("CPS") as a Bilingual Teacher beginning in June 2018 at Mireles Elementary Academy ("Mireles"). She worked at Mireles during the 2018-2019 school year and at Calmeca Academy of Fine Arts & Dual Languages ("Calmeca") during the 2019-2020 school year. According to the Complaint, Mireles and Calmeca "are designated Title I campuses as defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965" and receive federal funding. See [90] at 5-6.
Defendant Board is "responsible for the governance, organizational and financial oversight" of CPS. [90] at 5. Defendant Jackson is CPS's Chief Executive Officer. Defendant ISBE "is responsible for the educational policies and guidelines for public, charter, and private schools from pre-school through grade 12 for the State of Illinois." Id. at 6. Defendant Ayala is Superintendent of the ISBE. Defendant CTU is the "sole and exclusive bargaining agent for teachers [and other categories of employees] employed by the BOE." Id. at 8. Defendant Sharkey is CTU's President. Cardona is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. Defendant Walsh is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor.
During the time period relevant to the Complaint, the Principal of Mireles was Evelyn Randle-Robbins ("Robbins") and the Assistant Principal was Stacy Gray ("Gray"). The otherkindergarten teacher at Mireles was Stella Alorsey ("Alorsey"). In late August 2018, prior to the start of the school year, Plaintiff visited Mireles to begin preparing her classroom. According to the Complaint, the ceiling in Plaintiff's classroom was water-damaged, made of asbestos, and "had black mold covered with white paint," and the room had "a foul smell." [90] at 14. Plaintiff told Gray that she wanted these problems fixed. Plaintiff also complained about finding rodent droppings in her classroom on several occasions.
On August 31, 2018, Plaintiff contacted the parents of her new kindergarten students to introduce herself and answer any questions about the first day of school. The parents were "not aware" that Plaintiff "was a Bilingual teacher and that instruction would be in Spanish." [90] at 162-63. One parent, who was Mexican but whose daughter spoke only English, "became infuriated." Id. at 163. Plaintiff suggested he go to campus the next day, a Saturday, to talk to school administrators. Id. According to the Complaint, when Robbins found out about Plaintiff's phone calls to parents, she tried calling and texting Plaintiff "to no avail" and "finally sent her an e-mail" asking why she called students when the class list was not yet finalized; why she used her personal cell phone; why she "didn't ... explain to the parent that Bilingual teachers in the current transitional programs in Mireles Academy do not deliver instruction solely in the child's native language all day long"; and why she told one parent she could show up at school on the weekend to speak with Robbins. [90] at 15. After Plaintiff made her phone calls, "[m]any parents or legal guardians" of students who spoke only English "requested their children be transferred to Alorsey's Kindergarten classroom." Id. However, many other monolingual English-speaking children remained in her classroom. See id. at 15-16.
On September 16, 2018, Plaintiff sent an email that she refers to as the "Complaint of CPS" to a number of city, state, and federal officials, including Jackson, the Secretary of Education andSecretary of Labor. See [90] at 11; see also id. at 160-67. In the email, Plaintiff "highlighted concerns with the Bilingual and Special Education Programs and the physical working environment at Mireles" (asbestos, mold, etc.) and how Principal Robbins "had begun harassing her." Id. at 11. Plaintiff's primary problem with the school curriculum was that she was hired as a bilingual teacher but was expected by Robbins and Gray to act like a "general teacher." Id. at 164. Plaintiff complained that "Mireles has hundreds of Spanish Bilingual students but none of them are instructed in their native language." Id. Instead, a "transitional bilingual," or "TBE" model was used, id., in which students were instructed primarily in English. Plaintiff also noted that the school had no books or workbooks in Spanish or for English as a Second Language ("ESL") and "no environmental print in Spanish in hallways." Id. at 165. Plaintiff's classroom also lacked reading, writing, science, and social studies books. Id. Robbins' alleged harassment of Plaintiff included (but was not limited to) refusing to accept her application for the Local School Council ("LSC") when she first provided it; refusing to allow her to take her students on bathroom breaks in the manner she saw fit; telling her she was making "excuses" when she had no working computer to finish her lesson plans by the time they were due; and not providing her with a printer in her classrooms, like all the other teachers. See id. at 163-63. Other than an acknowledgment on behalf of then-Secretary of Education DeVos and an email from Ernesto Matias, Chief, Office of Language and Cultural Education (who is not a party to this suit), Plaintiff received no response. See id. at 13.
Plaintiff alleges that Robbins "continued to harass her in retaliation" for filing the Complaint of CPS. [90] at 13. On October 24, 2018, Plaintiff contacted her union field representative, Joseph McDermott ("McDermott") for the first time to file a grievance. See [90] at 35. On October 25, she "sent McDermott an e-mail that explained how the Bilingual Programat Mireles violated Article 3-1 of the Contract." Id. at 36. On October 26, 2018, Plaintiff "filed an OSHA complaint online with the Department of Labor" against CPS and Mireles. Id.
Subsequently, Robbins observed Plaintiff in her classroom on several occasions without providing feedback. Plaintiff believes Robbins was recording her, without her...
To continue reading
Request your trial