White v. Park Forest-Chicago Heights School District 163

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DR. CALETHA WHITE, )

)

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 23-CV-5006

)

v. ) Judge Robert W. Gettleman

)

PARK FOREST-CHICAGO HEIGHTS )

SCHOOL DIST. 163; MARGARET )

MCDANNEL, in her individual capacity, )

KIMBERLY ELMORE-PERKINS, in her )

individual capacity, CHRISTINA DUPEE, in )

her individual capacity, JACQUELINE JORDAN, )

in her individual capacity, DR. JOYCE CARMINE, )

in her individual capacity, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiff Dr. Caletha White brings the instant complaint against defendants: Park Forest-

Chicago Heights School District 163 (“the District”); Margaret McDannel (“McDannel”), in her

individual capacity; Kimberly Elmore-Perkins (“Elmore-Perkins”), in her individual capacity;

Christina Dupee (“Dupee”), in her individual capacity; Jacqueline Jordan (“Jordan”), in her

individual capacity; and Dr. Joyce Carmine, in her individual capacity (“Carmine”) (collectively

“defendants”). Count I alleges that defendants McDannel, Elmore-Perkins, Dupee, and Carmine

tortiously interfered with plaintiff’s employment contract under Illinois law; Count II alleges that

defendants violated plaintiff’s right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 23, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss

the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

and to strike plaintiff’s request for punitive damages (Doc. 9). For the reasons discussed below,

the court grants defendants’ motion.

BACKGROUND

According to the facts alleged in plaintiff’s complaint, the District is an Illinois

municipality, and may be sued through the Board of Education (“the Board”).1 The Board is

responsible for administering six public schools in Park Forest and Chicago Heights, Illinois, and

is the sole policymaking body for the District. The District employed plaintiff as superintendent

under three successive employment contracts beginning in 2018. Plaintiff alleges that the Board

recently extended her contract in February 2023 after it “unanimously determined Plaintiff had

achieved all its targeted goals.” The Board extended plaintiff’s contract until June 30, 2025.

However, on May 31, 2023, the Board voted to place plaintiff on indefinite paid administrative

leave pending possible reassignment.

Also on May 31, 2023, the Board replaced plaintiff with defendant Carmine as interim

superintendent. Conversely, plaintiff had replaced Carmine as superintendent when she began in

2018. Plaintiff alleges that at all relevant times, defendants McDannel, Elmore-Perkins, Jordan,

and Dupee were members of the Board. McDannel and Elmore-Perkins were elected to the

Board in April 2023, when they replaced two members who had supported plaintiff’s contract

extension. Currently, McDannel is the president of the Board. According to plaintiff,

McDannel, Elmore-Perkins, and Dupree swore an oath under Illinois statutory law when they

joined the Board that “they had no power except when they were voting at a duly noticed

meeting of the Board.” Plaintiff alleges that McDannel, Elmore-Perkins, and Dupree were

required to undergo training on the principles of good governance for school boards from the

State of Illinois, and “[o]ne of the primary principles is that board members are not allowed to

1 The complaint states that the District may sue and be sued through the Board pursuant to Illinois School Code, 105

ILCS 5/10-2, but as defendants point out, the case caption lists the District, not the Board, as a defendant. In their

motion, however, defendants treated the Board as if it were the properly named party.

interfere in the day-to-day management of the schools in their districts.” While the Board

supervised plaintiff and set District policy, plaintiff alleges that she, as superintendent, “had sole

responsibility for administering the day-to-day operations of all aspects of the District’s

schools.”

However, plaintiff alleges that “Carmine contacted members of the Board in March 2023

to urge them to terminate Plaintiff’s contract and pay her to go away.” She alleges that “[o]n

information and belief, Carmine hatched a plan with McDannel and Elmore-Perkins to oust

Plaintiff from her position and replace her with Carmine after they were elected to the Board.”

According to plaintiff, McDannel “set the plan in motion” on May 2, 2023, by “demanding a

meeting with Plaintiff and her staff to review all documents relating to the District’s operations,

contracts, staffing, and budget.” McDannel was allegedly not acting under Board authority, but

rather “was told to do this by individual members without Board approval.”

Consequently, “[r]ealizing that this action violated the Contract and Illinois law, Plaintiff

felt compelled to notify the Board on May 8, 2023, that she intended to retire on June 30, 2024,

even though she did not wish to retire.” Plaintiff alleges that McDannel, Elmore-Perkins, and

Dupee “communicated with Plaintiff’s employees” to “countermand her orders and interfere

with Plaintiff’s ability to manage the District.” She also alleges that McDannel “demanded that

she fire an employee because she was related to a former Board member,” and “[w]hen plaintiff

resisted, McDannel went around Plaintiff directly to staff and had the employee terminated by

the Board.” Moreover, plaintiff alleges that McDannel told to her to change the negotiating team

that was working on the District’s collective bargaining agreement, and took control over the

budget. Further, plaintiff alleges that McDannel “contacted staff directly and demanded

personnel information and employment contracts for certain employees.”

Plaintiff then alleges that she wrote a letter to McDannel, in McDannel’s capacity as

Board president, and the Board’s vice president to request a meeting “to clarify her role as

superintendent.” Instead of responding to the letter, McDannel allegedly used her control over

the Board’s agenda “to make sure Plaintiff’s letter was ignored.”

On May 31, 2023, McDannel allegedly called a special Board meeting to terminate

plaintiff, and before the meeting, told certain employees that plaintiff would be terminated and

replaced by Carmine. On May 24, 2023, a former Board member allegedly hosted a live

Facebook event that announced that plaintiff would be terminated, and similarly, “[l]eaks to the

media” stated that plaintiff would be terminated. Plaintiff further alleges that Elmore-Perkins

gave an interview before the meeting, in which she stated that plaintiff was being terminated for

her “failure to monitor former Board member’s use of District credit cards,” although Elmore-

Perkins allegedly stated in closed session that she “was removing Plaintiff because of the way

she was treated when she was reassigned during her employment in the District.” As discussed

above, plaintiff alleges that the Board voted to place plaintiff on paid leave, and the Board issued

a resolution stating that plaintiff had resigned as of June 2024.

Plaintiff complains that she was not present at the special Board meeting, and she was

“effectively terminated.” According to plaintiff, McDannel instructed staff not to notify plaintiff

of the meeting, and “[t]he District’s attorney was also instructed to tell Plaintiff not to attend.”

Following the meeting, plaintiff alleges that McDannel notified her that she was barred from

school property, and ordered staff to retrieve her key card, phone, iPad, and hard drive.

According to plaintiff, McDannel also directly announced to staff that plaintiff was removed.

She complains that she “has lost future earning potential as her ability to obtain future

employment as a superintendent has been adversely affected,” and the Board has “deprived [her]

of the opportunity to extend her Contract and increase her salary.” Plaintiff also complains that

McDannel allegedly prevented the District from “paying certain vacation benefits owed under

Plaintiff’s contract.”

LEGAL STANDARD

“To survive a motion to dismiss [under Rule 12(b)(6)], a complaint must allege sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), citing Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6). For a claim to have “facial

plausibility,” a plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “[W]here the well-pleaded

facts do not permit the court to infer more than the possibility of misconduct, the complaint has

alleged—but has not shown—that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. “Threadbare recitals of

the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6). Regarding plaintiff’s claim pursuant to § 1983, defendants argue that the Seventh

Circuit has consistently rejected similar claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, and regardless,

they are entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants also argue that plaintiff has failed to allege

that defendants tortiously interfered with her employment contract. The court evaluates each

count separately.

First, the court evaluates whether plaintiff has stated a claim for defendants’ alleged

violation of her right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment in Count II. To state a

claim for a procedural due process violation, a plaintiff must plead: (1) conduct by someone

acting under the color of law; (2) that the conduct deprived plaintiff of a protected property

interest; and (3) the deprivation occurred without due process of law. See Redd v. Nolan, 663

F.3d 287, 296 (7th Cir. 2011). The U.S. Constitution does not confer property rights nor define

the scope of property interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, but state law and

contracts may create property interests. See Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408

U.S. 564, 576‒77 (1972). Defendants argue that plaintiff was not entitled to a due process

hearing because she has not plausibly alleged that she was deprived of such an interest.

In the Seventh Circuit, public employees have a constitutionally protected entitlement

(i.e., a property interest) when they are employed under a contract for a fixed period that can be

terminated only for cause. See Baird v. Board of Educ. for Warren Comm. Unit School Dist.

No. 205, 389 F.3d 685, 692‒93 (7th Cir. 2004). Conversely, “[p]urely dignitary or otherwise

nonpecuniary dimensions of employment are not property interests protected by the due process

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Bordelon v. Chi. Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs., 233 F.3d 524,

530 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted). A plaintiff “must show some economic loss

from the Board’s actions, or at least establish an identifiable impact on [her] future income or

economic benefits.” Id. She must demonstrate that such deprivation is more than de minimis to

be actionable. See id.

Specifically, the Seventh Circuit has determined that suspension with pay is generally not

actionable unless the suspension imposes a “substantial indirect economic effect on the

plaintiff.” Palka v. Shelton, 652 F.3d 447, 452 (7th Cir. 2010). In Batagiannis v. West Lafayette

Community School Corporation, 454 F.3d 738, 740 (7th Cir. 2006), the Seventh Circuit stated

that “[t]he due process clause secures private interests against public deprivation,” and

“[g]overnmental powers are not themselves private property.” The court determined that a

school superintendent “may well have a property interest in the office’s emoluments but not in

the office itself.” Id. It further reasoned that “[e]very appellate decision that has addressed the

subject accordingly has held that a contractual right to be a superintendent of schools creates a

property interest in the salary of that office but not the ability to make decisions on behalf of the

public.” Id. at 740 (collecting cases). The Seventh Circuit rejected a similar argument in

Ulichny v. Merton Community School District, 249 F.3d 686, 702 (7th Cir. 2001), holding that

the plaintiff did “not have a recognized property interest in performing particular duties as a

principal.”

In the instant case, plaintiff admits that she is on paid administrative leave until June

2024, but argues that she has been “deprived of the ability to work according to the terms of her

Contract” and has “effectively, been fired.” It may be true, as plaintiff argues, that defendants

have “made it impossible for Plaintiff to achieve the written goals in her employment contract,”

and “[t]herefore, by law, she cannot receive an extension of her Contract.” Yet, plaintiff’s

actionable alleged property interest is in her salary and benefits for a fixed contractual term, not

her contract’s extension (which, according to the complaint, is not guaranteed but depends on

Board vote). Under Batagiannis and Ulichny, plaintiff does not have a property interest in

“performing particular duties” as superintendent, and thus, she does not have an actionable

property interest in demonstrating that she accomplished the goals in her contract.2

Plaintiff also argues that she was deprived of a property interest because she has lost

future earning potential through her adversely affected ability to obtain future employment.

Defendants counter that this allegation is insufficient because plaintiff’s retirement notice

“undermines any inference that Plaintiff is seeking future job opportunities as a superintendent in

2 Plaintiff cites Bordelon v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees, 8 F. Supp. 2d 779 (N.D. Ill. 1998), for the

opposite conclusion, but Bordelon was decided before the Seventh Circuit’s rulings in Batagiannis and Ulichny, as

well as before the Seventh Circuit ruled on the defendant’s appeal in Bordelon v. Chicago School Reform Board of

Trustees, 233 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2000).

the District or elsewhere.” The court, however, views the facts in the light most favorable to

plaintiff, and notes that defendants largely glaze over plaintiff’s allegation that she involuntarily

retired, or was “constructively discharged.” Constructive discharge occurs when an employer

makes employment “so unbearable that an employee resigns.” Palka v. Shelton, 652 F.3d 447,

453 (7th Cir. 2010). In Ulichny, the Seventh Circuit rejected the plaintiff’s constructive

discharge allegation where she alleged that, among other things, her supervisor: took control

over the school and student discipline; assigned plaintiff to the duties of a $10/hour aide;

displayed to the public that she would have no supervisory duties over anyone; and told her to

get a new job. 249 F.3d 686, 703 (7th Cir. 2001). The Ulichny court explained that the

plaintiff’s circumstances were not “objectively intolerable.” Id. at 704.

In the instant case, the court concludes that plaintiff has not plausibly pled that she was

constructively discharged. Plaintiff alleges that she felt “compelled” to notify the Board of her

intent to retire because McDannel allegedly “demand[ed] a meeting with Plaintiff and her staff to

review all documents relating to the District’s operations, contracts, staffing, and budget.”

McDannel’s “demand” is not the type of conduct that would constitute the type of hostile work

environment that would support a constructive discharge claim. See Swick v. City of Chicago,

11 F.3d 85, 88 (7th Cir. 1993). See also Chapin v. Fort-Rohr Motors, Inc., 621 F.3d 673, 679

(7th Cir. 2010) (noting that “a working condition does not become intolerable or unbearable

merely because a ‘prospect of discharge lurks in the background’”).

In addition, plaintiff’s intended retirement date (June 30, 2024) was more than one year

after she rendered her retirement notice. Moreover, plaintiff announced her intent to retire on

May 8, 2023, over two weeks before the Board voted to place her on administrative leave. As

the Seventh Circuit determined in Swick v. City of Chicago, 11 F.3d 85, 88 (7th Cir. 1993), “[i]t

is implicit in these cases that the actionable event is the discharge, not the petty harassments

which may have cumulated to an unbearable level.” Thus, it is implausible for plaintiff to allege

that she retired because the Board placed her on paid administrative leave.

In addition, plaintiff has failed to plausibly plead that “her career growth and earnings

will be reduced, as well as the income she will receive after retirement,” because her allegations

are conclusory. Plaintiff attempts to bolster her argument by stating that she “is unable to take

another job where she might grow her professional skills and experience,” and “instead, she is

forced to sit idly and do nothing,” but plaintiff’s complaint does not contain these allegations. It

is true that the Seventh Circuit has “recognized that a loss of position that impedes future job

opportunities or has other indirect effects on future income can inflict an actionable deprivation

of property.” Head v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees, 225 F.3d 794, 803 (7th Cir. 2000).

In the instant case, however, as discussed above, plaintiff notified the Board of her intent to retire

before the Board placed her on administrative leave.

Likewise, the court concludes that plaintiff’s allegation that she has suffered financial

loss due to defendants’ refusal to “pay[ ] certain vacation benefits owed under Plaintiff’s

contract” is conclusory. In Baerwald v. City of Milwaukee, 131 F.3d 681, 683 (7th Cir. 1997),

the Seventh Circuit stated that “it cannot be that . . . every denial of a fringe benefit . . . is, unlike

discharge, or suspension without pay, or permanent refusal to reinstate, a constitutional

controversy just because the employee is a tenured public employee.” (Internal citations

omitted).3 In the instant case, plaintiff remains on administrative leave and her employment does

not end until June 2024. Ostensibly, even assuming that defendants have thus far not paid

3 In Crim v. Board of Education of Cairo School District 1, 147 F.3d 535, 547 (7th Cir. 1998), the Seventh Circuit

held that the district court had properly determined that the plaintiff did not establish a property interest in unpaid

“accrued vacation pay” because his claim “remain[ed] unsubstantiated.” Crim, however, is not helpful in the instant

case because the Seventh Circuit evaluated Crim at summary judgment, not the pleading stage.

vacation benefits that plaintiff is entitled to receive, defendant could still pay plaintiff's vacation

benefits before she retires.

Because the court concludes that plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that defendants

deprived her of a property interest without due process, it is not necessary to determine whether

the individual defendants (McDannel, Elmore-Perkins, Dupee, Jordan, and Carmine) are

protected by qualified immunity. The court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss Count II.

Moreover, because Count IJ is the only claim that would provide federal jurisdiction, the

court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim for

tortious interference of contract in Count I. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Without jurisdiction

over Count I, it is unnecessary to evaluate whether to strike plaintiff's claim for punitive

damages.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss Count II

(Doc. 9), and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count I.

ENTER:

[ ax W. Gettleman

United States District Judge

DATE: December 28, 2023

10