# Grissom v. Board of Education

> Illinois Supreme Court · April 3, 1979 · 75 Ill. 2d 314

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710341

## Case

- **Full name:** RICHARD GRISSOM, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF BUCKLEY-LODA COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 8 Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 3, 1979
- **Citations:** 75 Ill. 2d 314; 26 Ill. Dec. 683; 388 N.E.2d 398; 1979 Ill. LEXIS 273
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Underwood
- **Judges:** Clark, Underwood
- **Cited by:** 52 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710341

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that the Open Meetings Act does not prohibit a board from adjourning to closed session to draw up signed findings and then returning to open session to publicly record individual members’ votes on the findings

## Opinion text

MR. JUSTICE UNDERWOOD, dissenting:
In my judgment our opinion in Gilliland v. Board of Education (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 143 , is dispositive of this case and requires affirmance of the judgments of the trial and appellate courts, which upheld the action of the board of education in discharging plaintiff. However, if the reasons for his discharge were remediable and failure to give plaintiff prior notice thereof invalidates his discharge, as my colleagues now hold, I do not understand why it is necessary for them to discuss the other issues which are so extensively treated.
The board of education found the conduct of plaintiff resulting in his discharge was not remediable. The trial and appellate courts held that finding was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and I agree. My colleagues acknowledge “The charges are serious and there is evidence to support the charges” (75 Ill. 2d at 332), but then proceed to hold the failure to warn him denied plaintiff “the opportunity to confront and correct an apparently serious situation” (75 Ill. 2d at 332). In view of the testimony that the principal had, during the 1973-74 school year, written plaintiff six letters or memoranda regarding that situation without noticeable improvement, the finding by my colleagues that the causes for discharge were remediable seems to me completely unrealistic.
It will be quite difficult for school boards to discharge their responsibilities to provide effective educational environments if their findings are to be treated as cavalierly as my coHeagues have treated these.
I would affirm the judgments of the trial and appellate courts.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710341. Public record. Not legal advice.