Smith v. Ill. Sch. Dist. U-46

Decision Date13 August 2015
Docket NumberNo. 14 C 5627,14 C 5627
Citation120 F.Supp.3d 757
Parties Robert Smith, Plaintiff, v. Illinois School District U–46, Morris Mallory, and Miguel Rodriguez, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

Leslie Charles Morant, Law Offices of Les Morant, PLLC, St. Charles, IL, for Plaintiff.

Michael Joseph Hernandez, Patricia J. Whitten, Kendra Berner Yoch, Scott Cruz, Franczek Radelet, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JORGE L. ALONSO, United States District Judge

Before the Court is defendants' motion to dismiss the verified second amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Robert Smith, brought this case against Illinois School District U–46(the "District") and two of its employees: Morris Mallory, the principal of Gifford Street High School ("GSHS"); and Miguel Rodriguez, the District's Chief Legal Officer and Secretary of the School Board.Smith asserts First Amendment retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as a claim under the Illinois Whistleblower Act.

The Verified Second Amended Complaint alleges the following facts, which are taken as true for purposes of this motion.1From 2010 to the present, Smith has taught science at GSHS, a school that is part of the District's "Alternative Programs" for at-risk students.(R. 32, V. Second Am. Compl. ("Compl.")¶¶ 14, 16.)In spring 2012, Mallory gave Smith a poor performance evaluation, and Smith lodged a formal rebuttal.Since then, Mallory has treated Smith "contemptuously."(Id.¶ 22.)On October 2, 2012, Smith was teaching a class in Room 319 of GSHS, which he shared with a fellow teacher (the "coworker").(Id.¶ 23.)Several students using school computers told Smith that they had discovered the coworker's mug shot on a website that displays mug shots.(Id.¶ 24.)According to the website, the coworker had been arrested for forgery.(Id. & R. 32–1, Ex. A, Aff. of Robert Smith ("Smith Aff."), Ex. 1.)At the end of the school day, Smith attempted to find Officer Kathy Schreiner, the Elgin Police Department's liaison to GSHS, but was unable to do so, and he went home.(Id.¶ 26.)That evening, Smith searched the Kane County Circuit Court's website to determine the outcome of the forgery arrest.(Id.¶ 27.)On that Court's website, Smith discovered that the coworker had been arrested for forgery in April 2012 and retail theft in April 2011.2(Id . ¶ 27.)On another website, Smith discovered that the coworker had been arrested sixteen years earlier for impersonating a government official.(Id. & Ex.A, Smith Aff., Ex. 4.)

The next morning, Smith met with Schreiner and explained that he was "concerned" that the coworker "would be permitted to continue teaching despite his criminal record."(Id.¶ 28.)Schreiner advised him to inform GSHS administration immediately.Shortly thereafter, Smith emailed Mallory and John Heiderscheidt, the District Safety Coordinator.(Id.¶¶ 21, 29.)The email stated in pertinent part that while monitoring student computer work the prior day, Smith had "discovered a few students on inappropriate websites" such as the mug shots site and that the coworker had "appeared on a number of the websites."Smith stated further that he"wanted [the recipients] to be aware of the situation" because he was "sure the students will be talking about the website findings over the course of the next few days."Smith did not mention the results of his own research or anything about the particular charges involved.(Id., Ex. A, Smith Aff., Ex. 5.)When Heiderscheidt replied that Smith should forward the email to "HelpDesk" so that it could address his "concerns with the District protection," Smith responded that his concerns were "not so much for monitoring the [internet] usage," but "for the commotion it caused by the students seeing a current teacher on the various websites and the charges listed in association with the mugshot."(Id. )Heiderscheidt responded, "Got it thanks."(Id. )Smith felt that this response was "inadequate," and Mallory had not responded, so Smith attempted to arrange a meeting with Mallory, but Mallory was out of town for the remainder of the week.(Id.¶ 31.)

The same afternoon, a District computer technician came into Smith's classroom to perform work on the teachers' computer.Smith had not requested that any work be done, so he asked what was wrong, and the technician said that the coworker had been having trouble with the Firefox browser failing to open certain websites.(Id.¶ 32.)Because Firefox was not a District-approved program, Smith believed it should not have been installed on the teachers' computer.After the technician left, Smith examined the Firefox browser history.(Id.¶ 33.)Smith concluded that his coworker had been accessing what Smith believed were "inappropriate" websites, including search results for the term "sexy devil."3(Id. )The complaint also alleges that "[a]t or around the same time, Smith discovered inappropriate photographs of female students in [the] desk [that he shared with the coworker] in Room 319, along with the school-issued identification cards of several current and former female students."(Id.¶¶ 33, 36, 45.)The complaint does not explain the significance of the discovery of the identification cards or in what way the photographs were "inappropriate."

Smith showed "the apparently inappropriate browsing history" to Rod Watson(whose role at the school the complaint fails to specify), who advised Smith to inform GSHS administration at once, and Carol Collum, the GSHS Dean of Students, who instructed Smith to "document" the browser history.(Id.¶¶ 34–35.)Smith printed out the browser history and gave it to Collum later that day.(Id.¶ 36.)Smith also requested that he be transferred out of Room 319.(Id. )On October 8, 2012, Smith contacted Lisa Jensen, the District's Director of Employee and Labor Relations, and scheduled a meeting for the next day, and also provided copies of the browser history to Mallory and Collum.(Id.¶ 39.)

On October 9, 2012, at Collum's direction, Smith completed a "formal incident report" in which he described his review of the computer browser history on the teachers' computer in Room 319, stated that he had "determined some of the websites to be pornographic in nature," and mentioned the coworker's "criminal activity" without providing specifics.(Id.¶¶ 38, 40 & R. 32–2, SmithAff., Ex. 7.)The report did not mention anything about photographs or identification cards found in the desk in Room 319.(R. 32–2, SmithAff., Ex. 7.)In the report, Smith opined that the coworker "had no business being in the building pending" an outcome of a "formal investigation," and he reiterated his request to move classrooms.(Id. )The same day, Smith had a meeting with Jensen, Rodriguez, and Christopher Nemec, an Elgin Teachers Association("ETA") union representative, to discuss Smith's concerns about the coworker.(Compl. ¶ 41.)Smith provided Jensen and Rodriguez with a copy of his report and the browser history printout.Jensen stated that she would contact Mallory to discuss the issues and that she would provide the District Superintendent, Jose M. Torres, with a copy of the report and browser history printout.(Id.¶ 42.)

On October 11, 2012, Smith and Nemec were summoned to a meeting with Mallory, Heiderscheidt, and Collum.(Id.¶ 44.)Heiderscheidt asked Smith "extensive questions" regarding the basis for Smith's concerns about the coworker.Mallory said that Smith would remain in Room 319 through the end of the week, but would be transferred to Room 305 on October 29, 2012.Heiderscheidt also stated that the written information Smith had provided would be passed on to Human Resources, which would investigate further.(Id. )The next day, Smith met privately with Heiderscheidt to express his concerns about the photographs and identification cards he had found in the desk he shared with the coworker, because Smith "no longer trusted" that Mallory would "even acknowledge a problem existed, much less take steps to address that problem."(Id.¶ 45.)

On October 16, 2012, Mallory emailed room assignments to GSHS staff.Despite Mallory's prior statement that Smith would be moved to Room 305, Smith was in fact moved to Rooms 313 and 314.(Id.¶ 47.)The teacher who taught in Room 313 was "irate" and "confronted" Smith, stating "in vulgar and abusive terms" that she would not allow Smith to set up his "mad scientist" equipment in her classroom.(Id.¶ 48.)

Later that day, Smith met with Jensen about the room issue; he was concerned that because he had been moved to classrooms in which he had never taught, the coworker about whom he had made reports would be "able to deduce" that Smith had complained about him and requested a room change.Jensen "expressed outrage" that Mallory had "reneged on his agreement" to move Smith to Room 305, and she instructed Smith to get an explanation from Mallory and report back to Jensen that day.(Id.¶ 49.)

Smith and Nemec then met with Mallory, and although Mallory ultimately agreed to allow Smith to teach in Room 305 if Smith obtained the consent of the other teacher who was assigned to that room, Mallory "refused to formally change" Smith's room assignment because he would have to explain a formal change to District administration.(Id.¶ 50.)When Smith attempted to report back to Jensen regarding the meeting with Mallory, Jensen failed to return two phone messages and never followed up with Smith regarding the room issue.(Id.¶ 51.)

On October 17, 2012, because Jensen was unavailable, Smith met with Rodriguez and told him that the Room 313 teacher's "verbal abuse of the previous day was creating an intolerable environment."Rodriguez said that he would instruct Jensen to call Smith before the end of the day.Rodriguez also said that Jensen was handling the investigation of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex
6 cases
  • McAllister v. Kent State Univ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • April 16, 2020
    ...abuse was not protected under the First Amendment because Nevada law mandated she report the incident); Smith v. Ill. Sch. Dist. U-46 , 120 F. Supp. 3d 757, 773 (N.D. Ill. 2015) ("Smith's argument that his complaints about alleged misconduct were made as a ‘concerned private citizen,’ ... a......
  • Hart v. Amazon.com, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • June 13, 2016
    ...("District courts have broad discretion to deny leave to amend ... where the amendment would be futile."); Smith v. Ill. Sch. Dist. U – 46 , 120 F.Supp.3d 757, 777 (N.D.Ill.2015) ("Having amended his complaint twice in response to two previous motions to dismiss, Smith has had three opportu......
  • Allen v. Bd. of Trs. Rock Valley Coll.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • September 3, 2021
    ... ... § ... 626(d)(1)(B); Bass v. Joliet Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 86 , ... 746 F.3d 835, 839 (7th Cir. 2014) ... Courts , No. 12-CV-8800, 2014 WL 2978173 (N.D. Ill. July ... 2, 2014) in support of their argument that ... it affects only one person. See Smith v. Ill. Sch. Dist ... U-46, 120 F.Supp.3d 757, 776 ... ...
  • Guajardo v. Skechers U.S., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois
    • September 21, 2021
    ... ... 10-cv-1104, 2011 WL 5930469, ... at *8 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2011). Relatedly, a court may also ... a defendant's conduct. Smith v. Prime Cable of ... Chi. , 658 N.E.2d 1325, 1337 ... Smith v. Ill. Sch. Dist. U-46 , 120 F.Supp.3d 757, ... 777 (N.D. Ill ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT