Personnel records and teacher suspensions

Millions of workers throughout the state are potentially affected by a November 16 decision of the Illinois Supreme Court in two cases that initially concerned conditions of teacher employment. The court found unconstitutional the Review of Personnel Records Act (found in Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 48, sees. 2001-2012).

While section 2002 gives an employee access to ". . .any personnel documents which are, have been or are intended to be used in determining that employee's qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation, discharge or other disciplinary action except as provided in Section 10," the latter exempted "materials used by the employer for management planning including. . . comments or ratings used for the employer's planning purposes." The high court doubted that "an employer of ordinary intelligence can determine with reasonable certainty which personnel documents are, or are not, subject to disclosure."

A teacher in Peoria, who received a five-day disciplinary suspension without pay because of allegations by students, was shown letters containing the charges with students' names deleted. When he instituted hearing proceedings his representative found that the letters were not in his personnel file. When he was ultimately suspended his suit in circuit court raised the issue of the absence of the letters from the personnel file. He claimed that section 2002 required their inclusion.

In the meantime a teacher in Crystal Lake had brought similar action; her contract was not renewed because of charges contained in letters from parents and colleagues, but the letters were missing from her file. The appellate court ruled the act unconstitutional because its vagueness infringed upon due process rights of employers. The court in the Peoria case took this as the basis for a decision against the plaintiff. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases. The attorney general entered the case because of his obligation to defend the constitutionality of statutes.

The Peoria case also raised the issue, affecting teachers only, of a school board's authority to suspend. The court stated categorically: "The Code does not expressly authorize a school board to suspend a tenured teacher." Since boards are required by the School Code to "adopt and enforce all necessary rules for the management and government of the public schools of their district" (found in Ill. Rev. State 1985, ch. 122, sec. 10-20.5), the court ruled that there is a derived power to impose disciplinary suspension.

The Peoria teacher claimed that the board should have followed the rules for dismissal proceedings in section 24-12 of the School Code. They permit a board to suspend a teacher pending dismissal hearings, but there are no rules governing suspension. The high court concluded that the legislature would have stated clearly whether it intended dismissal proceedings to apply to suspension. The Peoria board's procedures required notice of suspension and provision for a hearing. The court held that these provided due process adequate to the situation.

Justice Thomas J. Moran wrote the opinion for the unanimous decision (Justice Joseph F. Cunningham not participating) in the consolidated cases Spinelli v. Immanuel Lutheran Evangelical Congregation, Inc. (Docket No. 63802) and Kamrath v. The Board of Education of School District 150 (Docket Nos. 644-43, 64452).           F. Mark Siebert

January 1988 | Illinois Issues | 30