Spinelli v. Immanuel Lutheran Evangelical Congregation, Inc.

• Decision Date: 16 November 1987
• Docket Number: 64443 and 64452,Nos. 63802,s. 63802
• Citation: 113 Ill.Dec. 915,118 Ill.2d 389,515 N.E.2d 1222
• Parties: , 113 Ill.Dec. 915, 64 A.L.R.4th 603, 108 Lab.Cas. P 55,870, 43 Ed. Law Rep. 287, 2 IER Cases 1129 Carol SPINELLI v. IMMANUEL LUTHERAN EVANGELICAL CONGREGATION, INC., Appellee (Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, State of Illinois, Intervenor-Appellant). Lawrence E. KAMRATH, Appellee, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT 150, PEORIA COUNTY, Appellee (Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, State of Illinois, Intervenor-Appellant).
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 1222

515 N.E.2d 1222

118 Ill.2d 389, 113 Ill.Dec. 915, 64

A.L.R.4th 603,

108 Lab.Cas. P 55,870, 43 Ed. Law Rep. 287,

2 IER Cases 1129

Carol SPINELLI v. IMMANUEL LUTHERAN EVANGELICAL CONGREGATION, INC., Appellee

(Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, State of

Illinois, Intervenor-Appellant).

Lawrence E. KAMRATH, Appellee, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT 150, PEORIA

COUNTY, Appellee (Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney

General, State of Illinois, Intervenor-Appellant).

Nos. 63802, 64443 and 64452.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 16, 1987.

Julian E. Cannell, David J. Walvoord and Laurie M. Judd, Peoria (Kavanagh, Scully, Sudow, White & Frederick, P.C., of counsel), for Bd. of Educ., School Dist. No. 150, Peoria County.

Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., pro se.

Roma Jones Stewart, Sol. Gen. (Eddie Santiago, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, of counsel), for intervenor-appellant.

Sterling M. Ryder and Susan Frederick Rhodes, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Illinois State Bd. of Educ., Chicago, for amicus curiae.

James E. Berner, Caldwell, Berner & Caldwell, Woodstock, for Immanuel Lutheran Evangelical Congregation, Inc.

Robert F. Forrer and Yolaine Dauphin, Wilson & McIlvaine, and B. Tucker Olson, Executive Vice-President, Illinois Retail Merchants Ass'n, Chicago, for amicus curiae.

Michael Radzilowsky and Deborah A. Dobish, Chicago (Radzilowsky & Dobish, of counsel), for Lawrence E. Kamrath.

Harold A. Katz, Jerome Schur and Irving M. Friedman, Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, and Jordan Rossen, General Counsel, Intern. Union, UAW, Detroit, Mich., for amicus curiae.

Justice THOMAS J. MORAN delivered the opinion of the court:

In cause No. 63802, the plaintiff, Carol Spinelli, brought an action in the circuit court of McHenry County to compel the defendant, Immanuel Lutheran Evangelical Congregation, Inc., to disclose certain documents in her personnel file. (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1984 Supp., ch. 48, par. 2012) (since amended, see Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 48, pars. 2012(b), (c), effective January 1, 1986).) The circuit court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and ordered defendant to produce the documents for inspection. The appellate court reversed, holding that "An Act to permit employees to review personnel records * * * " (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1984 Supp., ch. 48, pars. 2001 through 2012) (the Act) was unconstitutionally vague. (144 Ill.App.3d 325, 331-32, 98 Ill.Dec. 269, 494 N.E.2d 196.) This court allowed the Attorney General leave to intervene and to appeal as a matter of right because a constitutional question arose for the first time in and as a result of the action of the appellate court. (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, sec. 4(c); 107 Ill.2d R. 317.) Spinelli did not file an appellee's brief in this court.

In cause No. 64443 and cause No. 64452, plaintiff, Lawrence E. Kamrath, a tenured public high school teacher, was suspended without pay for five days. He filed an action in the circuit court of Peoria County seeking to invalidate his suspension and to expunge this suspension from his record. Count I of plaintiff's amended complaint alleged that the board of education (the Board) violated the Act by denying his request for certain documents the Board considered in imposing his suspension. Count II alleged that the Board's suspension procedures violated sections 24-11 and 24-12 of the Illinois School Code (the Code) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 122, pars. 24-11, 24-12). Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on both counts. While his motion was pending, the appellate court, in Spinelli, declared the Act unconstitutional, whereupon the Board filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on count I. The Attorney General intervened to defend the constitutionality of the Act. (107 Ill.2d R. 19; Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 110, par. 2-408(c).) Thereafter the circuit court granted the Board's motion for summary judgment on count I on the basis of the appellate court's decision in Spinelli. The court granted Kamrath's motion for summary judgment on count II based on Craddock v. Board of Education (1979), 76 Ill.App.3d 43, 29 Ill.Dec. 376, 391 N.E.2d 1059, aff'd on other grounds (1980), 81 Ill.2d 28, 39 Ill.Dec. 815, 405 N.E.2d 794 in which the appellate court held that the statutory procedures applicable to the dismissal or removal of a tenured teacher are also applicable to suspensions.

In cause No. 64443, the Attorney General appealed the circuit court's order granting the Board summary judgment on count I directly to this court pursuant to Rule 302(a) (107 Ill.2d R. 302(a)). In cause No. 64452, we allowed the Board leave to appeal directly to this court from the order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on count II pursuant to Rule 302(b) (107 Ill.2d R. 302(b)). This court consolidated all three appeals for disposition.

Three issues are raised for review: (1) whether the Act is unconstitutionally vague, (2) whether a local school board had the authority to suspend a tenured teacher for disciplinary reasons, and (3) if so, whether it must comply with the statutory hearing procedures applicable to the removal or dismissal of a tenured teacher as set forth in section 24-12 of the Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 122, par. 24-12).

In cause No. 63802, the relevant facts are undisputed. Immanuel Lutheran Evangelical Congregation, Inc., is a not-for-profit corporation which operates a Christian church and school in Crystal Lake, Illinois. The defendant employed plaintiff as a teacher under a series of one-year contracts from August 1980 through June 1984. When plaintiff's contract for the 1983-84 school year expired on June 15, 1984, the defendant declined to renew her contract for the 1984-85 school year. The defendant informed plaintiff that its decision not to retain her was based, in part, upon letters it had received from parents and teachers and placed in her personnel file.

Plaintiff then requested to inspect her personnel file pursuant to section 2 of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1984 Supp., ch. 48, par. 2002). The defendant permitted plaintiff to examine her file, but withheld the letters upon which it had based its decision not to renew her contract because it had assured the individuals who had written the letters that their letters would be held in strict confidence. Consequently, plaintiff filed this action pursuant to section 12 of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1984 Supp., ch. 48, par. 2012) to compel production of the letters. The defendant argued that section 10(c) of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat., 1984 Supp., ch. 48, par. 2010(c)) exempted the letters from disclosure because they were used for "management planning" or "planning purposes." In the alternative, the defendant contended that the Act was violative of due process because it was so vague and indefinite that a person of ordinary intelligence could not reasonably know what was proscribed. The circuit court rejected the defendant's arguments and entered summary judgment for plaintiff. The appellate court concluded that the Act was so vague and uncertain that it violates the due process rights of employers. 144 Ill.App.3d 325, 332, 98 Ill.Dec. 269, 494 N.E.2d 196.

In cause No. 64443 and cause No. 64452, the plaintiff, Lawrence E. Kamrath, had been employed by the defendant, the board of education of School District 150, Peoria County (the Board), since the 1967-68 school year. On February 27, 1985, school administrators met with him to discuss allegations that he had verbally abused his students and that he had used profane and vulgar language in his classroom. The administrators showed plaintiff written statements from nine of his students concerning the charges. These statements were unsigned and the students' names had been deleted. Although he was given the opportunity to refute these charges, plaintiff admitted that he used profanity in the classroom. The administrators filed reports and recommendations with the Board summarizing the students' statements.

On March 4, 1985, the Board issued a "Notice of Remedy" pursuant to section 24-12 of the School Code warning plaintiff that if he verbally abused his students, used profane and vulgar language in his classroom or refused to help his students with their assignments in the future, the Board would institute dismissal proceedings and consider suspending him pending a dismissal hearing. The Board also initiated proceedings to suspend plaintiff for five days without pay pursuant to its written policy which provides procedures for suspending certificated teachers without pay for up to 30 days for misconduct that would constitute legal cause for dismissal pursuant to section 10-22.4 of the Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 122, par. 10-22.4). The Board sent plaintiff a letter notifying him of the suspension proceedings and the underlying charges. Pursuant to the Board's policy, plaintiff requested a hearing. He further requested that the hearing be conducted before an independent hearing officer rather than the Board. The Board denied this request and, instead, scheduled a hearing before the Board for March 25.

In preparing for the hearing, plaintiff's representative from the Illinois Federation of Teachers, Daniel Walther, reviewed his personnel file and discovered that it did not contain any of the students' statements or other documentation concerning the proposed suspension. Walther met with the Board's attorney and verbally requested information concerning the incidents that led to the suspension proceedings, including copies of the students' written statements which had been taken by school administrators. He also made a written request for this information, but the Board denied both requests.

On March 25, 1986, prior to the hearing, Walther made a written request to exclude the information contained in the students' written statements. The Board took the request under advisement and proceeded with the hearing. Three students testified at the hearing. Each student was shown his or her statement,...