Toth v. Rich Township High School District 227

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

TRACI TOTH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 17 CV 6186

v. )

) Judge Robert W. Gettleman

RICH TOWNSHIP HIGH )

SCHOOL 227, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff Traci Toth brought a three-count complaint against defendants Rich Township

High School District 227 (“District”) and Board of Education (“Board”) members Antoine Bass,

Randy Alexander, Shannon Ross-Smith, and Dr. Delores Woods, all in their individual capacities

(collectively “defendants”), alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count I), 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Counts II and III), and the Fourteenth Amendment (Count III). �e parties cross-moved for

summary judgment, and the court denied both motions, holding that there were genuine disputes

of material fact. (Doc. 98). Plaintiff now brings a second motion for summary judgment on the

sole issue of whether the Board’s Resolution provided adequate notice that plaintiff was entitled

to a private or public hearing. For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 111) is

granted, and plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. 122) is denied.

BACKGROUND

On September 25, 2020, the court denied the parties’ cross motions for summary

judgment. �e background facts are described in detail in that opinion and need not be repeated

here. Toth v. Rich Township High School Dist. 227, 2020 WL 5751187 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 25,

2020). During the first round of summary judgment briefing, plaintiff and defendants cross-

moved for summary judgement on plaintiff’s procedural due process claim. �e elements of a

procedural due process claim are “(1) deprivation of a protected interest and (2) insufficient

procedural protections surrounding that deprivation.” Michalowicz v. Vill. of Bedford Park, 528

F.3d 530, 534 (7th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). �e court denied both motions, holding that

there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had a protected interest in her early

retirement benefits and whether there was a deprivation of that interest.

�e court similarly held that there was a genuine dispute of material fact for the second

element of plaintiff’s due process claim, stating:

Plaintiff argues that she received no notification that her benefits or salary would be

reduced. �e letter informing her of her demotion says nothing about salary or

benefits. In fact, the record indicates that officials repeatedly promised her that her

benefits and salary would not change. �e parties agree that plaintiff did not receive

any sort of hearing prior to, or after, termination. Defendants counter that a

reclassification hearing was available after plaintiff’s demotion under either the

collective bargaining agreement or the school code, and that plaintiff failed to

utilize the procedures available to her. Additionally, in response to plaintiff’s Local

Rule 56.1 statement of facts, defendants attach a Board resolution authorizing

reclassification of several administrators, including plaintiff. �at resolution states

that reclassified employees may seek a private or public hearing regarding their

reclassification. Defendants further argue that it was “not incumbent on the District

to request that Plaintiff file a grievance. It is her obligation to assert her own rights.”

(Doc. 93, 10).

Defendants’ arguments are unpersuasive and do little more than demonstrate

questions of material fact. First, a hearing after termination is insufficient process;

a plaintiff is entitled to a pre-termination hearing. Simmons v. Gillespie, 712 F.3d

1041, 1044 (7th Cir. 2013) (“�e due process clause of the fourteenth amendment

does require a state to afford an opportunity for a hearing before depriving someone

of a property right created by state law.”) (emphasis added). Second, it is

unreasonable for defendants to fault plaintiff for failing to request a reclassification

hearing when defendants provided repeated assurances that her salary and benefits

would remain unchanged in her teaching role (and ignoring her counsel’s requests

for an explanation once it was clear the District reneged on its promise). �ird, it

is unclear from the record whether plaintiff had any notice of the available

reclassification hearing. A question of fact remains regarding whether the

resolution itself is sufficient notice of plaintiff’s procedural rights, and whether the

Board provided the resolution to plaintiff. See Dunesbery v. U.S., 534 U.S. 161,

168 (2002) (governmental entity bears the burden of showing that the procedures

used were “reasonably calculated under all the circumstances” to apprise the party

of the pendency of the action). Finally, it is incumbent on the Board to provide

plaintiff with sufficient process, and that includes reasonable notice regarding the

available grievance procedures. A reasonable jury could find the Board’s process

inadequate.

Given the material questions of fact, summary judgment is inappropriate. �e court

denies both plaintiff’s and defendants’ motions.

(Doc. 98, 10-11) (emphasis added).

Several months after the court’s ruling, on January 8, 2021, the parties filed a joint status

report in which plaintiff stated that she had identified Lora Sheehy as a witness who could provide

evidence on whether the Board sent plaintiff the Resolution before her demotion. �e parties asked

for permission to depose the witness, as discovery had already closed. �e court granted the

request, and the parties deposed Lora Sheehy on March 3, 2021.

At her deposition, Ms. Sheehy testified that she was the Executive Assistant to the Director

of Human Resources for the District. It was her responsibility to handle all personnel matters for

the District’s administrative employees, including plaintiff. In March 2016, the Board issued the

relevant Resolution, which listed eight administrators, including plaintiff, whose contracts would

not be renewed. Two letters were attached to the Resolution: (1) Statement of Facts Concerning

Reclassification of [Employee Name] Notice of Non-Reclassification; and (2) Statement of Facts

Reclassification letters. Both letters were hand-delivered to each affected employee, informing

them that their contracts would not be renewed and that they would be reassigned to a teaching

position. �e Resolution stated that employees could seek a private hearing before the Board to

address their reclassification, and if they were unsatisfied with the results of that hearing, they had

a right to a public hearing. Neither the Resolution nor the letters mention the termination of any

benefits.

Ms. Sheehy testified that it was her responsibility to send the letters to the administrators.

She read the contents of the letters into the record and stated that these were the only documents

sent to plaintiff and the other administrators. She did not send the Resolution to plaintiff or any of

the reclassified administrators. Ms. Sheehy further testified that it was the District’s policy to not

send the Resolution to protect the other employees’ privacy, and that in her nearly sixteen years on

the job, she never sent the Resolution to an employee who had a dispute over their retirement

benefits.

Plaintiff brings a second motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether plaintiff

received the Resolution apprising her of her right to a hearing, and whether the Resolution

constitutes sufficient notice of plaintiff’s right to a hearing.

DISCUSSION

Summary judgment is proper where there is “no dispute as to any material fact and the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute as to

any material fact exists if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for

the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). �e party

seeking summary judgment has the burden of establishing that there is no genuine dispute as to

any material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In determining

whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must construe all facts and reasonable

inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See CTL ex rel. Trebatosky v.

Ashland Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 524, 528 (7th Cir. 2014). But the nonmovant “is only entitled to

the benefit of inferences supported by admissible evidence, not those ‘supported only by

speculation or conjecture.’” Grant v. Trus. of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2017).

As noted above, the elements of a procedural due process claim are “(1) deprivation of a

protected interest and (2) insufficient procedural protections surrounding that deprivation.”

Michalowicz v. Vill. of Bedford Park, 528 F.3d 530, 534 (7th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).

Plaintiff’s second motion for summary judgment addresses whether the Resolution satisfies the

second element of a procedural due process claim. Specifically, plaintiff argues that she never

received the Resolution, and that the Resolution does not constitute sufficient notice of plaintiff’s

right to a hearing.

Plaintiff has provided the testimony of Lora Sheehy, which states that Ms. Sheehy did not

send the Resolution to plaintiff, and that it was the District’s practice to not send the Resolution

in order to protect the other administrators’ privacy. Plaintiff further argues that defendants have

not provided any evidence indicating that plaintiff received the Resolution. Even if plaintiff

received the Resolution, plaintiff argues that it would not have sufficiently apprised plaintiff of

her rights because it did not mention the early retirement program or that her retirement benefits

would be terminated or altered as a result of her reclassification.

Defendants’ response brief is impressively unresponsive. Defendants spend the first half

of their brief arguing that plaintiff does not have a property interest in her employment—an issue

on which the court has already ruled and which no party has currently contested. Defendants

have also switched their position on the issue of the Resolution. In the first round of summary

judgment briefing, it was defendants who identified the Resolution and argued that the

Resolution provided notice to plaintiff of her right to a reclassification hearing. Plaintiff has filed

the instant motion in response to defendants’ argument, claiming that it is uncontested that

defendants never sent the Resolution and that in any event it would constitute inadequate notice.

But now defendants argue that the Resolution is completely irrelevant because it involves

plaintiff’s employment agreement and accuse plaintiff of attempting to “misguide” the court.

Defendants proceed to make arguments regarding the collective bargaining agreement, and claim

that Count III “is nothing more than a state law claim for breach of contract.” �e court

addressed these arguments both in its ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss and the first

motions for summary judgment. It need not address them for the third time, especially when

they do not resolve the instant motion.

Ultimately, the court agrees with plaintiff. �ere is no dispute that the Board did not send

the Resolution to plaintiff, and that plaintiff never received the Resolution. Indeed, defendants

concede that it was the District’s practice to not send the Resolution to the affected employees.

Further, even if plaintiff had received the Resolution, it would not constitute adequate notice

because it did not inform plaintiff that her retirement benefits would be terminated or otherwise

altered. �e court grants plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.1 To be clear, summary judgment

is granted only to the extent that the court finds that the resolution constitutes inadequate notice

under the second element. �e court’s earlier ruling on the first element—that there are disputed

issues of fact regarding whether there was a deprivation of a protected interest—still stands.

Plaintiff has additionally moved to strike defendants’ response to her Rule 56.1 statement

of facts (Doc. 122). She objects that defendants’ responses are inappropriately argumentative

and too long. She also moves to strike defendants’ Exhibit F, which is a copy of an employment

1 Although partial motions for summary judgment are permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), they are generally

disfavored as they result in piecemeal litigation and a waste of judicial resources. �is is especially so when the partial

summary judgment motion does not resolve an entire claim, but rather addresses only a single element. Plaintiff’s

current motion is more like a pretrial motion in limine, seeking a ruling on the particular issue discussed above.

Nevertheless, because the parties have briefed the issue as a request for partial summary judgment, the court will treat

it as such.

agreement that plaintiff did not sign. Plaintiff claims that Exhibit F was not produced to her

during discovery. Defendants respond that they in fact produced this document, and attach the

produced version with the Bates stamp to their response brief. The court declines to strike this

exhibit because it appears that defendants produced it to plaintiff, and because the Exhibit has

little bearing on the outcome of the instant motion.

As for defendants’ responses to plaintiff's statement of facts, the court agrees that the

responses are excessively lengthy and inappropriately argumentative. However, the court

declines to strike these paragraphs, and will consider each party’s statement of facts to the extent

they are supported by the record.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 111) is

granted, and plaintiff’s motion to strike (Doc. 122) is denied. Due to the ongoing COVID-19

pandemic, and the consequent backlog of criminal and civil cases, the court is unable to set a

trial date in this case at this time. The parties are directed to file a final pretrial order using this

court’s form on or before April 8, 2022. Answers to any motions in limine are to be filed on or

before April 22, 2022. The court will set a pretrial conference after review of these filings. The

status hearing previously set for December 10, 2021 is stricken.

ENTER:

United States District Judge

DATE: December 3, 2021