case where you have one school district fabricating an employment verification form as a song to another school district in what amounts to a pedophile teacher and this case  perfunctory form that the illinois state board of education requires school districts to fill out when another school district is hiring a teacher it's pretty straightforward they have to know how many days the teacher talked not just whether they were employed so you can be creative in the sense of that they were employed in the sense that they were on payroll this form is pretty specific it asked for based off and in this case the form that was filled out by unified indicated that this particular teacher mr white bennett has argued that you got one of the six only applies to oral promises and oral misrepresentations the language is pretty clear that section of the tort immunity act is not to say anything about written communications it's  ten it says that it applies to somebody acting within their scope employ to negligent misrepresentations whether or written i do not see how it would be absurd to read to bash one of six to include only oral and only oral misrepresentations and promises while she gushed to ten applies to both oral and written there are two entirely different sections one is designed to protect the public body such to gush to ten is designed to protect individual employees when they're acting within the scope and when they are not acting negligent so it it's very specific in that sense so we believe that the court error in its application  of seven i merely applies to libel and slander cases if you look at all the cases that have been cited in the in the decision below all of those cases are about libel and slander now there is another provision of section two death one of seven which talks about her vision of information and it because we're to apply via that provision provision of information generally to misrepresentations to any kind of communication it would effectively render the toward immunity act the rest of the torture act pretty moved in your relevant why would you need any other section because if you think about how the tort of unity act is supposed to operate it's supposed to provide limited immunity with respect to a person's ability to sue a public body it's not intended to cut off all liability of the public by the way that the lower court has interpreted to one of seven at least as far as we can believe is that it would cut off all liability if it's applied that broadly moving on section two dash  provides of unity for employee when they are alleged to be liable for somebody else's actions her vanity is not arguing that anybody at unified is liable for somebody else's actions that somebody got robbed or we're all talking around here is john white the pedophile teacher or bat is not arguing that the individual at unit five who completed the form his name is john five we're not arguing that john ties while because john white  knowing that you need five when they completed that verification for new that john whitehead aged pedophile behavior while he was teaching at unit five had made contact with students  helps us in this case because there is language in knox college which talks about the difference between scrushy narry and ministerial actions and it is important to note that when we're talking about john pi's actions the assistant superintendent it was a ministerial asked the court below never applied and any analysis to determine if it was ministerial or discretionary now the tort immunity act according to the illinois supreme court in such cases a zimmerman and in chicago flips cases has clearly held that for the public body for the public body to be held liable for employees actions the action at issue has to be ministerial in other words immunity only applies to the public body if the action of the employee was discretionary john tice completion of this form was not discretionary it's a not i i would say no in the sense that discretionary involves those situations where a school district official or any public official has to actual size discretion with respect to such things as selling a school building that's a common example a common distinction that's been used there's a case in which you get a good distinction was made in a school district setting in which a school district decided to sell a building  that was considered to be discretionary by the superintendent but when the school district fabricated and its best just report the completion of the especially this report was considered to be ministerial because it was just a completion of a report so that's the important distinction a discretionary type decision is a decision that i'm a school official is charged with making in the course of their duties and within the scope of their duties to fill out an employment verification form would not call for the exercise of discretionary judgement within the scope of one's duties if he did exercise discretion in that case that employee is not acting within the scope of their duties so w i'm sorry i'm that in a number of ways so there's money damages as far as how the district had to address not many damages money damages primarily and having to investigate what occurred money damages and the time and effort that was spent in looking at what the district had to do with that point in time and then ultimately resulting to your parents of the students these were a band of students they diligently engaged me as quickly as they  discussions with those parents to try to resolve this issue resoled what happened in a way that it in the best way possible under the circumstances and that's that is money that isn't  notice the court below looking at the ferias of facts does say a discovery rules apply and the court kind of ruminates on different points where maybe the district was on notice but it never really says at which point for fans position is that it did not it was not put on notice and statute did not begin to run until april of two thousand and nine and what occurs in april of two thousand and nine is a police report is provided to work and i in the process of discovery the band was copied on a police report other litigation brought by students against unit five so litigation is continuing which are band is not a party to but it's copied on a on discovery which includes a police report in that police report  lot of allegations including allegations i guess urbana that were simply not true so simply reading the allegations of one of these complaints would not have put it on notice  would not put a survey and i noticed that unit five knew that mr white was a pedophile when they completed that verification form there were allegations in there that it was a pedophile while he was at unit five but there were no allegations in there that unit five clearly knew about it there were no allegations in there about the parents who had complained about the teacher aide who had complained that john white was touching little girls who was in that room two thousand and eight that you verification form was not what was false but again we did not know at that point in time that that was about how the poll was false because it mis reported the fact that john white was actually dismissed in the september of zero nine to complain that the problem here are is that had up until april of two thousand and nine shortly before september of two thousand and nine or bennett did not know that when that form was fabricated that unit five knew about pedophile behavior now there's another date that occurs here and that is in two thousand and eight year in the sentencing hearing and at that sentencing hearing you have the assistant superintendent from unit five mr pike again testifying at the sentencing hearing and he testifies that that unit five knew two things at the time that they let him go that they let mr white go then was that he had viewed pornography adult pornography on his computer at work and the second thing was that he shared a picture not a pornographic picture but a picture of a fully clad woman with a student those were the two reasons are the two things that john pike testified to as what the unified knew let mr white go in addition mr paey at that sentencing hearing say said there was nothing else that we knew about he felt close that there was any other information this is an april of two thousand and eight religious with respect to what occurred at urbana as fast as it could as i said as soon as it became known to our benefit john white was arrested and gauged in a course of due diligence it investigated itself it tried to immediately a trust the verify how many days they times in each year that they were employed by that particular district so you need five in completing this form for the last year the john white top unit five said that he worked he talked actually taught  and they did it to facilitate the hire of john white fire ban and that's that's that's the harm that occurs in damages that certain grafter but that is the harm that occurs in this case nasty injury that they see is to recover from unified the settlement expenses and the litigation costs of pain curd under complaints and claims of allegations of their all of them more than one year before this lawsuit was filed on september eighth two thousand and nine what were those facts first of all they knew pitt why have pled guilty to criminal conduct in champaign at mclean county more than one year before the sauce you w know how they got have verification form and learned that he'd been removed from the classroom before the end of the year that would have been a pretty flack because no teacher ever gets removed from the classroom before the end of the school year unless something really egre something happened and they argued in the court below that had they known that information in two thousand and five they would have investigated further because it so early ever happens so if it was such a red flag and more a big red flag in two thousand counsel's representations that complaint had allegations that unit five had actual knowledge of parental complaints that john white had been engaging in sexually inappropriate conduct sexual harassment grooming interviews those were the allegations in that complaint and that complaint also alleged that you know five had concealed that information when quote this is we know they knew this information but this school district is also a little turmoil where they've been sued by x number of people who are all allegations and they're trying to defend themselves get rid of the teacher  it just seems to me that the facts surrounding what was going on this time that we don't have very well i think and that we shouldn't be decided in respectfully i think that the facts that they i can't think of anything that's come to mind but i just it's just seems unusual to me that that someone who's been harmed has this need to go out and figure it out for i well bear they have  duty to investigate they've got all of these facts before them and it's not that they have to have actual knowledge we're not suggesting that they they need in the choir to inquire once they have knowledge about these facts and i would applies to not patient care cases which is what we have here paragraph b of mice only two patient care cases in have paragraph three there's express language providing for discovery world in this case were not in a cases clearly part and even if the discovery rule applies again they had enough pieces of information a lot of pieces of information pieces that they're claiming were have been a red flag in two thousand and five had they known it public employee being amused from a written list for the station and by virtue to one of nine the local public entity should also be immune but under two hundred six you would have an inconsistent result in that according to plans you have why bill t for a written message misrepresentation so in order to interpret those provisions consistently they most both there's no separate independent counter misrepresentation in that claim the defendant's phrase to one of six the court said the existing case law turfing applying this section is entirely in the realm of zoning and permits where misrepresentations cause property los person in this statutory provision necessarily means that they intended that statutory immunity to extend beyond responded secure and in fact there are cases public employee when another person is the immediate cause of that injury i finally just hung up i know my time's running out we believe that under under the only case far the plaintiffs because they were they settled under allegations of complaints alleging they were independently tortious they cannot seek to shift their settlement and litigation expenses to another party here unified and apply implied principles indemnity and under those principles where a party settles under complaint where it is over it's to be independently forces it cannot see to recover its own settlement and litigation expenses i know my time for now thank you subsequently conduct relative to students and five what was the date it was early two thousand and seven so we're talking january february the arrests there were multiple victims so the arrests were urbana still didn't know at that point that unit five knew it was a pedophile unit five was saying we better go because he looked at adult pornography on a school district computer and we got to go because he gave a picture of a fully clad woman to a questions that were being asked the past time were straightforward in the sense that it was not surprising to one school district that another school district but let somebody go looking at the whole horn that's not an unusual scenario so that it wouldn't necessarily trigger in one school district's mind and looking at whether they should sue another school district that that may have been improper because remember what her van a new at that time they knew that he was let go in the middle of the year forms false and they knew what john hyde testified to and that was it was because of looking at adult porn with a parent say ok dull corners got to be kids born here probably should say that in this day and age i them out to school districts who don't generally sue each other school it's pretty unusual for one district to sue another school district and particularly school districts to deal with difficult teachers under tenure laws which really make it difficult at times as to how to deal with a scenario like this it's not unusual certainly red flag not unusual that a teacher would get let go in the middle of the year for looking at adult porn on the school district are sufficient grounds to let that teacher go so it wasn't unusual to her ban of that that occurred and remember there's a lot of plaintiffs out there at this time who's who are throwing a lot of different allegations about whether vanity knew that or bennett never knew and