1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Lincoln Brown, ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 v. ) 

Board of Education of the City of Chicago, ) 

a body politic and corporate, and ) 

Jean–Claude Brizard, in his official capacity ) 

as the Chief Executive Officer of the Board of ) 

Education of the City of Chicago, and ) 

Gregory Mason, individually and in his official ) 

capacity as Principal of Murray Language ) 

Academy and employee of the Board of ) 

Education City of Chicago, ) 

 Defendants. ) Jury Requested

COMPLAINT 

This is a Civil Rights complaint for declaratory, injunctive and other 

appropriate relief brought by Plaintiff Lincoln Brown for violations of his 

individual and associational rights under the Fifth and the Due Process Clause 

of the Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and in 

violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, and Illinois common law. 

Lincoln Brown, an American citizen and highly-accomplished, middle –

school teacher at Murray Language Academy and an employee of the Chicago 

Board of Education, was disciplined (five-day suspension without pay) after 

engaging in Constitutionally-protected activity when he allegedly used verballyabusive language (the so-called “N-word”) to or in front of students when, in 

fact, he was leading a discussion about the abusive, harmful effects of such 

language. 

 On personal knowledge as to his own affairs and on information and 

Case: 1:12-cv-01112 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:1
2

belief, based in part on the investigation and analysis of his counsel, plaintiff 

swears the following: 

 I. Jurisdiction and Venue 

 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction premised upon Federal 

Question, 42 U.S.C §1983, the Freedom of Speech Clause of the First 

Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 

United States of America. Venue is proper in this District as all the unlawful 

acts of defendants occurred in the City of Chicago. 

 II. The Parties 

 2. Plaintiff Lincoln Brown is an American citizen, resident of the City of 

Chicago, widely acclaimed teacher in the Chicago Pubic Schools, and currently 

a teacher at Murray language Academy. 

 3. Defendant Jean–Claude Brizard is sued in his official capacity as the 

Chief Executive Officer of the Board of Education of the City of Chicago 

 4. Defendant Gregory Mason is sued both individually and in his official

capacity as Principal of Murray Language Academy and employee of the Board 

of Education City of Chicago. 

III. Facts Common to All Causes of Action 

5. As evidenced by Exhibit A, the narrative authored by plaintiff and as 

sworn to by Ex. B, on October 4, 2011, at the beginning of a grammar exercise 

in his sixth grade class, Lincoln Brown saw that his students were unsettled 

Case: 1:12-cv-01112 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:2
3

and arguing about the passage of a note which contained lyrics of a rap song. 

Lincoln Brown then conducted a discussion about how upsetting such 

language can be, attempted to give his own denunciation of the use of such 

language, and discussed how even such books as “Huckleberry Finn” were 

being criticized for the use of the “N-word.” Ex. A. 

6. On October 17, 2011, approximately two weeks after the class-room 

incident described above, Defendant Principal Greg Mason delivered to Lincoln 

Brown, on behalf of Central Office Personnel, “Notice of Pre-Discipline Hearing.” 

Ex. C. 

7. Pursuant to the October 17, 2011 Notice of Pre-Disciplinary, plaintiff 

was accused of violating Section 3-3 of the Chicago Public Schools Policy 

Manuel, “Using verbally abusive language to or in front of student.” Ex. C. 

8. Lincoln Brown also was accused of violating Section 3-17 of the Policy: 

“Violating School rules, Board rules, policies or procedures that result in 

behaviors that disrupt the orderly educational process in the classroom, 

in the school, and may occur on or off the school grounds or assigned 

work location. Any cruel, immoral, negligent, or criminal conduct or 

communication to a student, that caused psychological or physical harm 

or injury to a student.” Ex. C. 

9. Principal Mason in his own narrative of the event, states: “The very 

insistent [sic] I entered the room, I heard Mr. Brown discussing with the entire 

class of student on the word, “Nigger.” Principal Mason continues: 

Case: 1:12-cv-01112 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:3
4

“[he]...interviewed some students from the class separately, and in a private 

location in the school, [he] asked what they remembered about the word 

“Nigger” being used in class. One student from Mr. Brown’s 6th grade class 

was present during the time in question stated that a student wrote a mean 

poem about another student, and that Mr. Brown read parts of the poem 

aloud, and further discussed the problems of bullying. The student said the 

teacher just brought up the word “Nigger out of the blue.” Ex. D. 

 10. Defendant Mason used the word “nigger” with students at Murray 

Language Academy. Ex. D. 

 11. On October 25, 2011, a Pre-Disciplinary Hearing was held in the 

office of Defendant Greg Mason. 

12. On November 10, 2011, Principal Mason delivered to plaintiff the 

“Notice of Disciplinary Action,” wherein Mason confirmed the charge that 

Brown had engaged in misconduct and had violated Section 3-3 of the Board 

Rule/Policy, i.e., “Using verbally abusive to or in front of students.” For this 

conduct, Principal Mason imposed on plaintiff a five-day suspension without 

pay. Ex. D. 

13. At the “Suggestion(s) for Improvement” section of the Notice for 

Disciplinary Action, Mason wrote: “Do not use the word “N-----” with students 

at Murray at any time; whether a ‘teachable moment’ or not; the word is not 

appropriate for this age group.” Ex. D. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01112 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:4
5

14. Four days later, November 14, 2011, Mason tendered to Brown an 

“Amended Notice of Disciplinary Action, which inexplicitly appears to be an 

exact replica of the earlier notice of disciplinary action. Ex. E. 

15. Both Notices of Disciplinary Action charge Brown with violating 3-3 

of the Board Rules but not 3-17. Exs. D, E. 

15. On November 17, 2011, Brown timely submitted his Appeal from 

Suspension Dated 11/14/11 to the Director of Employee Relations, Chicago 

Public Schools. Ex. F. 

16. On December 8, 2011, a hearing was conducted in the Office of 

Employee Relations at which both Plaintiff Lincoln Brown and Defendant Greg 

Mason testified. 

17. By letter dated February 8, 2012, Cheryl J. Colston of the Office of 

Employee Relations wrote, in pertinent part, the following: 

“After a thorough review of this matter, including the conference 

held in the Office of Employee Relations on December 8, 2011, we found 

that that [sic] the evidence proved that you (Plaintiff Brown) engaged in 

inappropriate discussions with sixth grade students during instructional 

time. Your conduct violated Sections 3-3 and 3-17 of the Board’s 

Employee discipline Code. Your appeal is denied. 

“In accordance with this determination, you will serve your five-day 

suspension on February 17, 2012, February 21, 2012 and March 15, 

2012 through March 17, 2012.” (Emphasis in original.) 

Case: 1:12-cv-01112 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:5
6

18. March 17, 2012, falls on a Saturday, a day on which no school is 

scheduled. 

IV. First Cause of Action – First Amendment 

 19. Plaintiff restates and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 18 into this 

first cause of action 

 20. The actions of defendants have unjustly and illegally punished the 

plaintiff for speaking on a matter of public concern, i.e, race relations and 

appropriate words. Not only was plaintiff speaking on a matter of public 

concern, he was attempting to teach his class of students an important lesson 

in vocabulary, civility, and race relations. 

21. The actions of these defendants, and each of them, violates the First 

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and violates 

the rights of Plaintiff Lincoln Brown. 

22. As a result, an injunction regarding the suspension and damages, 

court costs, attorney fees, and whatever the court deems just should be 

awarded to plaintiff. 

23. The actions of these defendants have unjustly and illegally punished 

Lincoln Brown for speaking on a matter of public concern, i.e., race relations 

and abusive words. Not only was Brown speaking on a matter of public 

concern, he was attempting to teach his class of students an important lesson 

in vocabulary, civility, and race relations. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01112 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:6
7

24. The actions of these defendants, and each of them, violates the First 

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and violates 

the rights of this plaintiff. 

25. As a result, an injunction regarding the suspension and damages, as 

well as court cost, attorneys’ fees, and other costs the court deems just should 

be awarded to plaintiff. 

V. Second Cause of Action – Fifth Amendment 

 26. Plaintiff incorporates and restates paragraphs 1 through 25 into this 

second cause of action. 

 27. Absent any written or verbal rule or warning by Defendant Chicago 

Public Schools and its agents, the discipline accessed to plaintiff violates the 

Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment as incorporated by the Fourteenth 

Amendment in that the discipline is vague, retroactively applied, and otherwise 

violates law as applied to this plaintiff. 

 28. Further, this plaintiff has been accused of a variety of infractions of 

the vague Chicago Public Schools Policy Manual and therefore has not been 

confronted with a clear and understandable complaint regarding his conduct. 

Indeed, plaintiff was attempting to teach tolerance and civility to his students, 

but that apparently is not tolerated by Defendant School Board and its agents. 

 29. As a result, Defendants’ actions are vague, at best, and otherwise 

violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to 

Plaintiff Lincoln Brown. 

Case: 1:12-cv-01112 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:7
8

VI. Conclusion 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lincoln Brown requests that this court enter 

judgment in his favor and enter such judgment as to include statutory, 

compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages, attorney fees, litigation 

expenses, including fees for expert witnesses, and costs for each cause of 

action in this complaint, and that the court enjoin such future wrongful acts as 

committed by defendants, and other injunctive relief, and that the court grant 

such other and further relief as is just. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 _____________________________________ 

 Lincoln Brown, Plaintiff 

_____________________________ ________________________________ 

William Spielberger Terence Flynn 

Spielberger & Associates, LLP 53 W. Jackson 

53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1231 Suite 1231 

Chicago, IL 60604 Chicago, IL 60604 

312-834-0519 312-346-1378 

Case: 1:12-cv-01112 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/16/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:8