Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Michael M. v. Board of Education of Evanston Township High School District # 202

July 29, 2009

MICHAEL M. AND CHRISTINE M. AS PARENTS AND BEST FRIENDS OF ZACHARY M., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EVANSTON TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT # 202, EVANSTON TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT #202, AVIVA TAUMAN, MARILYN MADDEN, ARACELY CANCHOLA AND DR. ERIC WITHERSPOON, DR. BONITA SIMON, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: James B. Zagel United States District Judge

Judge James B. Zagel

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. BACKGROUND

Michael M and Christine M. are parents of Zachary M., a 16-year-old student at Evanston Township High School in Evanston, Illinois.*fn1 Evanston Township High School is a public high school owned and operated by the Board of Education.

Zachary is diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, a recognized disability. Plaintiffs claim that Zachary is disabled under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ("Section 504") and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and as such, he is entitled to reasonable accommodations under Section 504. Defendants deny that Zachary is eligible for a Section 504 accommodation plan because his disability does not substantially impair his learning ability. Plaintiffs filed a request for a Section 504 appeal hearing to resolve eligibility dispute. The hearing was held on November 3, 2008, and presided over by Dr. Bonita Simon, an impartial hearing officer. On November 10, 2008, Dr. Simon issued her ruling in favor of the school.

Plaintiffs' complaint consists of the following counts: (1) past violations of Section 504 based on improper denial of Section 504 eligibility ; (2) ongoing violations of Section 504; (3) civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on Section 504 and the ADA; and (4) petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of Dr. Simon's decision. Defendants now move to dismiss count 2, as well as all claims against the individual defendants. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Claim Against Dr. Bonita Simon

There is no dispute that neither the ADA nor Section 504 allows for liability against individual actors, and Plaintiffs do not seek to hold Dr. Simon liable under either statute. They instead seek review of Dr. Simon's decision and name Dr. Simon as a defendant to ensure that they have properly pled their state common law claim for certiorari review. The Illinois Administrative Review Act requires a plaintiff seeking judicial review of an administrative agency to name in the action "the administrative agency and all other persons other than the plaintiff who were parties of record to the proceedings before the administrative agency." 735 ILL. COMP. STAT. 5/3-107(a). Although Plaintiffs in this case are not seeking review of the hearing decision pursuant to this act, but rather to the common law writ of certiorari, they named Simon, a non-employee of the school district, out of concern that the common writ has a similar joinder requirement. Plaintiffs do not object to dismissal of claims against Dr. Simon if she is not a necessary party.

"In Illinois, common law certiorari is employed for reviewing the action of agencies and tribunals exercising administrative functions, where there is no statutory provision that provides for judicial review." Allgood v. City of Chicago, No. 06 C 2886, 2006 WL 2682302, at * 4 (N.D. Ill. 2006). Defendants argue that because Dr. Simon is neither an agency nor a tribunal, she is not subject to judicial review and the claims against her should be dismissed.

In Rochon v. Rodriguez, 689 N.E.2d 288, 291 (Ill. App. 1997), the court dismissed the police officer plaintiffs' petition for review of their termination by the superintendent defendant. Because the superintendent was not a tribunal or inferior court, and because his decisions to discipline plaintiffs were not quasi-judicial acts, the court held review by writ of certiorari to be "wholly inappropriate." Id. at 291. In this case, Dr. Simon is neither a tribunal nor an inferior court. However, the court in Mayor, City Council & Clerk of City of Harvey v. Dean, 1896 WL 4417, at *2 (Ill. App. 1896) noted that the writ lies not only to inferior tribunals, but also to "officers exercising judicial functions" whose actions are of a quasi-judicial nature. Judicial action typically involves the adjudication of personal rights and the opportunity for the parties to be heard. Id. at *3. Both parties agree that Dr. Simon was a hearing officer empowered by federal and state law to preside and rule on various issues of fact and law relative to a Section 504 appeal for Zachary. She was acting in a quasi-judicial manner and is a proper party to a claim seeking review of her decision.

B. Claims Against School District Employees

Defendants next argue that claims against the individual school district employees in their official capacities are redundant and unnecessary where Plaintiffs are also suing the Board of Education. Defendants argue that any obligations under Section 504 and the ADA that the individual Defendants may hold in their official capacities are derivative of their employer, the Board's obligations under these statutes, and for this reason, the claims against the individual Defendants must be dismissed.

In support of their argument, Defendants rely on Kerry M. v. Manhattan School District #114, No. 03 C 9349, 2004 WL 2538303 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2004). In that case, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant special education director in her official capacity where the defendant's employer was also a named defendant. Id. at *5. The court found suing the individual defendants to be "redundant and unnecessary." Official ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.