Thrash v. Board of Ed., School Dist. No. 189

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: KASSERMAN; KARNS, P. J., and HARRISON
• Citation: Thrash v. Board of Ed., School Dist. No. 189, 435 N.E.2d 866, 106 Ill.App.3d 182, 62 Ill.Dec. 68 (Ill. App. 1982)
• Decision Date: 10 May 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-217,81-217
• Parties: , 62 Ill.Dec. 68, 4 Ed. Law Rep. 812 Kelly THRASH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 189, Defendant-Appellee.

Page 866

435 N.E.2d 866

106 Ill.App.3d 182, 62 Ill.Dec. 68, 4

Ed. Law Rep. 812

Kelly THRASH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 189, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 81-217.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.

May 10, 1982.

Gerald L. Montroy, Cohn, Carr, Korein, Kunin, Schlichter & Brennan, East St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.

Stephen R. Rice, Rice, Durso & Rice, Belleville, for defendant-appellee.

KASSERMAN, Justice:

Plaintiff, Kelly Thrash, is a tenured teacher for School District No. 189, St. Clair County, teaching at Rock Junior High School. In 1975 he was appointed to the position of "administrative aide" to the principal, an appointment he held through June, 1979. In 1979 plaintiff applied for and was granted a sabbatical leave for the 1979-1980 school year. When he returned in September of 1980, he was involuntarily assigned to teach seventh grade geography full time. In January, 1981, he filed a petition in the circuit court of St. Clair County for an injunction to require defendant Board of Education to return him to the position of administrative aide. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied the petition without findings of fact. This appeal followed.

The issue raised by plaintiff's appeal is whether plaintiff proved his entitlement to be returned to the position of administrative aide upon his return from sabbatical leave. The parties agree that plaintiff's work record is good. No disciplinary motive for the change of duties is suggested.

Plaintiff urges that his claim of entitlement is supported by both the contract between the teachers' union and the school board and by the provisions of section 24-6.1 of The School Code (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 122, par. 24-6.1). Resolution of the instant appeal, therefore, requires consideration of the application of the employment contract to the dispute as well as the legislative purpose to be accomplished by the enactment of section 24-6.1.

As a general matter, it is established that injunctions are to be granted with great caution and only when plaintiff's right to such relief is clearly established and that the grant or denial of an injunction by the trial court is a discretionary matter which should not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Plasti-Drum Corp. v. Ferrell (3d Dist. 1979), 70 Ill.App.3d 441, 26 Ill.Dec. 723, 388 N.E.2d 438.

First we consider whether plaintiff has demonstrated that he is entitled to be reinstated as an administrative aide under the provisions of section 24-6.1 of The School Code. This section states, inter alia, that upon expiration of a satisfactorily completed sabbatical leave "the teacher, principal or superintendent shall be returned to a position equivalent to that formerly occupied." In the general conduct of its affairs, the school board has authority to reassign certified personnel to lesser positions, including lower paying positions, for bona fide reasons other than subterfuge designed to subvert the provisions of the teacher tenure law. (See Van Dyke v. Board of Education of School District No. 57, Cook County (1st Dist. 1969), 115 Ill.App.2d 10, 254 N.E.2d 76; Lane v. Board of Education of Fairbury-Cropsey Community Unit School District No. 3 (4th Dist. 1976), 38 Ill.App.3d 742, 348 N.E.2d 470.) However, section 24-6.1 operates to divest the school board of this authority where an employee has been granted and has successfully completed a sabbatical leave. The statute appears to require, at a minimum, that teachers be returned as teachers, principals as principals, and superintendents as superintendents. Noteworthy is the fact that the statute does not refer to administrative aides, nor to any other specific personnel classifications. Thus our inquiry is whether the legislature intended to require that personnel in classifications other than those specifically enumerated in section 24-6.1 be returned to the classifications they vacated when they left on sabbatical leave and, if so, whether "administrative aide" is such a classification. The parties have provided no controlling authority on this question, and our research has disclosed none.

The position of administrative aide appears to be a creation of the administrators of School District No. 189. The defendant school board does not itself hire administrative aides as such; they are, however, certified teachers. The parties agree that there is no pay differential between the two jobs.

The duties of the two positions differ markedly. As administrative aide, plaintiff's duties were entirely administrative, and he functioned as principal or assistant principal in some situations. As a teacher, plaintiff's duties were limited to teaching. Apparently, plaintiff viewed his own move from teacher to administrative aide as a promotion. This characterization appears to be fair. First, because a transfer from non-administrative to administrative duties would be considered a promotion in most fields; and, second, because administrative aides are a more exclusive group than teachers, i.e., all administrative aides are teachers, but not all teachers are invited to become administrative aides.

Plaintiff testified that there were 13 to 15 administrative aides in District No. 189. To his knowledge it was custom and practice to return administrative aides to their positions after a sabbatical leave, and this was corroborated by the testimony of the teachers' union president. Plaintiff stated that he had never heard of an administrative aide being returned to teaching before. He became an administrative aide at the request of and on the recommendation of the assistant principal, who recommended him to the principal. He was then recommended by the principal to the Central Office Superintendent, who made the appointment. Plaintiff and the president of the teachers' union agreed that administrative aides were considered teachers in training to be administrators.

Rock Junior High School principal Leroy Howell testified that plaintiff's appointment as administrative aide took no Board action and that the decision was almost entirely the principal's. Howell stated that he knew of "a few" instances of aides being returned to teaching but that he did not view that procedure as normal. Howell explained that while plaintiff was on sabbatical leave, Dr. Campbell became administrative aide, specifically to help in "curriculum development," the field in which Campbell had received his doctorate. Howell did not know whether or not plaintiff was educationally prepared to assist in curriculum development.

Dr. Lillian Parks, deputy superintendent of District No. 189, testified that only teachers and not administrators were eligible for sabbatical leaves. Asked whether aides had to be returned as aides, she replied that they did not and that they were teachers. She testified that the Board had never appointed an administrative aide.

Among the exhibits in evidence at trial was a job description for the position of administrative aide, listing as qualifications a teacher's certificate, a master's degree or degree in progress, and three...