Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

Castillo v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2018 IL App (1st) 171053

Appellate Court 

Caption

ELIZABETH CASTILLO, a Minor, by Her Mother, Esperanza 

Castillo, ESPERANZA CASTILLO, ROSALINO CASTILLO, 

MARIA CASTILLO, YESENIA CASTILLO, and ENRIQUE 

CASTILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE BOARD OF 

EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee.

District & No. First District, Second Division

Docket No. 1-17-1053

Filed April 24, 2018

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 16-L-267; the 

Hon. Kathy M. Flanagan, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.

Counsel on

Appeal

David W. Hepplewhite, of David W. Hepplewhite, P.C., and Sheldon 

Minkow, of Minkow Domin, both of Chicago, for appellants.

Law Department of Board of Education of the City of Chicago, of 

Chicago (Ronald L. Marmer and Lee Ann Lowder, of counsel), for 

appellee.
- 2 - 

Panel JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Presiding Justice Neville and Justice Mason concurred in the 

judgment and opinion.

 OPINION 

¶ 1 Elizabeth Castillo, a high school student, and her family sued the Board of Education of the 

City of Chicago (Board), after Estrella Martinez, a fellow student, physically attacked her 

off-campus. Castillo alleged that school officials failed to protect Castillo from Martinez’s 

on-campus harassment and eventual off-campus attack. The trial court held that the Board was 

immune from suit. 

¶ 2 We affirm because that is what the law requires. The Board’s alleged failure to prevent 

on-campus harassment depended on discretionary decisions regarding school discipline. And 

its alleged failure to protect Castillo from an off-campus attack involves police protection. In 

both areas, the Board has statutory immunity. Finally, Castillo did not sufficiently allege that 

the Board spoiled evidence by not preserving a diary where she recorded Martinez’s 

harassment. 

¶ 3 Background 

¶ 4 According to Castillo’s suit, Martinez physically attacked her off-campus. Before the 

attack, Martinez had previously attacked Castillo on school grounds, in front of school 

officials, including once on the day of the off-campus attack. In the two years before the attack, 

Castillo’s mother had spoken several times to school officials about Martinez harassing 

Castillo at school. Castillo’s mother called the school just before the attack to complain about 

Martinez, but no one would talk to her. After the attack, Castillo’s mother went to the school to 

retrieve the contents of Castillo’s locker, including a diary in which her daughter had written 

about the harassment, but school officials refused to give Castillo’s belongings to her mother, 

and the diary was never found. 

¶ 5 Castillo alleged that the Board had been negligent by allowing Martinez to remain a 

student despite her conduct, failing to prevent Martinez’s harassment or the attack by expelling 

her, calling the police or the girls’ parents, or providing a safe place on school grounds for 

Castillo to wait and avoid Martinez, and failing to warn Castillo of Martinez’s planned attack. 

Castillo also alleged that the Board had committed spoliation of evidence by losing, 

destroying, or failing to preserve her diary. 

¶ 6 The Board moved to dismiss Castillo’s complaint, arguing that it was immune because 

school officials had no duty to perform police functions by preventing Martinez’s off-campus 

attack on Castillo and disciplinary matters are discretionary. The Board also argued that it had 

no duty to preserve Castillo’s diary, that there were no facts alleging that school officials knew 

about the diary, and that it was not foreseeable that the diary would become important in the 

eventual lawsuit. 

¶ 7 The trial court dismissed Castillo’s complaint.
- 3 - 

¶ 8 Standard of Review 

¶ 9 We review a trial court’s dismissal under section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 

ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2016)) de novo, taking as true all well-pleaded facts and interpreting 

pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Mulvey v. Carl Sandburg High 

School, 2016 IL App (1st) 151615, ¶ 41. 

¶ 10 Analysis 

¶ 11 Castillo frames her brief around whether she sufficiently alleged a cause of action or a 

prima facie case against the Board. Like the trial court, we will assume that Castillo alleged 

that the Board had duties to protect her from Martinez. 

¶ 12 Castillo’s factual allegations fall into two categories: (i) the Board’s failure to protect her 

from Martinez’s harassment on school property (which, according to Castillo, happened in full

view of school employees) and (ii) Martinez’s off-campus attack on Castillo. 

¶ 13 Section 2-201 Immunity: School Discipline 

¶ 14 Castillo argues that the Board’s failure to discipline Martinez for her on-campus 

harassment violated the bullying-prevention statute (105 ILCS 5/27-23.7 (West 2016)) and the 

Board’s own anti-bullying policy. The trial court held that the Board was immune under 

section 2-201 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act 

(745 ILCS 10/2-201 (West 2016)), which states that “a public employee serving in a position 

involving the determination of policy or the exercise of discretion is not liable for an injury 

resulting from his act or omission in determining policy when acting in the exercise of such 

discretion even though abused.” Because the statute was enacted in derogation of common 

law, it must be strictly construed. Van Meter v. Darien Park District, 207 Ill. 2d 359, 368 

(2003). Section 2-201 applies to employees performing discretionary functions, but not 

“ministerial” acts that require no discretion by the employee to implement a given policy. 

Malinski v. Grayslake Community High School District 127, 2014 IL App (2d) 130685, ¶ 8. 

¶ 15 Castillo argues that section 2-201’s immunity applies only to “policy-making discretion,” 

not to the exercise of discretion in the implementation of policy. Courts have repeatedly 

rejected this argument and have applied section 2-201 immunity to school officials 

implementing anti-bullying policies similar to the one here. See Mulvey, 2016 IL App (1st) 

151615, ¶¶ 47-48 (implementation of school’s anti-bullying policy requires discretionary 

determinations of whether bullying occurred and appropriate consequences, not just 

ministerial acts); Malinski, 2014 IL App (2d) 130685, ¶¶ 12-13 (implementation of 

anti-bullying policy under bullying-prevention statute does not render school official’s actions 

ministerial); Hascall v. Williams, 2013 IL App (4th) 121131, ¶ 25 (school officials must 

determine whether bullying has occurred and appropriate consequences, which are 

“discretionary acts and policy determinations”). 

¶ 16 Review of the Board’s anti-bullying policy shows that its implementation requires both 

discretion and decision-making by school officials, at every level. Even as it defines bullying 

behavior, it cautions that the list is “illustrative and non-exhaustive” and directs school 

officials to consider “the student’s intent, the frequency or recurrence of the inappropriate 

behavior, and whether there are power imbalances between the students involved.” That is, a 

school employee could determine whether a behavior constitutes “bullying” even if the 
- 4 - 

behavior does not fall within the listed examples of “harassment, threats, intimidation” and the 

like. 

¶ 17 The policy directs school employees to intervene in bullying incidents “in a manner that is 

appropriate to the context,” and after investigation, to assign consequences “in a manner 

tailored to the individual incident, considering the nature of the behavior, the developmental 

age of the student, and the student’s history of problem behaviors and performance.” While the 

policy directs school employees to deal with bullying incidents, it assumes, and indeed 

mandates, discretionary decisions by employees. Like the policy in Mulvey, this policy is 

“discretionary in nature and does not mandate a specific response to every set of 

circumstances.” Mulvey, 2016 IL App (1st) 151615, ¶ 48; see also Hascall, 2013 IL App (4th) 

121131, ¶ 29 (school officials’ alleged acts and omissions constituted discretionary acts and 

policy determinations, so officials were immune under section 2-201). It could hardly be 

otherwise. For the Board to promulgate a policy that would inhibit individual school officials 

from making their own determinations as to what constitutes bullying and the appropriate 

disciplinary response would be difficult, if not impossible, to establish. 

¶ 18 Castillo relies on Barr v. Cunningham, 2016 IL App (1st) 150437, ¶¶ 3-4, where a student 

who had been injured during gym class sued the gym teacher for failing to require the students 

to wear safety equipment. The appellate court held that the gym teacher was not entitled to 

immunity under section 2-201 because the decision of whether to require safety equipment was 

not a policy-making decision. Id. ¶ 28. Barr was overturned by the Illinois Supreme Court on 

other grounds. Barr v. Cunningham, 2017 IL 120751. We reject its remaining analysis on the 

question of policy determination versus discretionary decision-making. Hascall, Mulvey, and 

Malinski—cases that also involve decisions under an anti-bullying policy—fit better factually 

with this case than Barr. 

¶ 19 Further, Castillo argues that the Board does not warrant section 2-201 immunity because it 

violated the bullying-prevention statute. 105 ILCS 5/27-23.7(d) (West 2016). But this statute 

only mandates that every school district create a policy on bullying; it does not mandate that a 

school respond to a particular instance of bullying in a particular way. The Board complied 

with the statute by creating an anti-bullying policy, and so Castillo cannot evade section 2-201 

immunity by relying on the statute alone. 

¶ 20 Section 4-102 Immunity: Police Protection 

¶ 21 Next, we will address the Board’s alleged failure to prevent Martinez’s off-campus attack 

at the core of this case. The Board argues, and the trial court held, that the Board retains 

immunity from suit because Castillo alleged a failure to protect her from a crime—a public 

entity is not liable for failure to “provide police protection service.” 745 ILCS 10/4-102 (West 

2016). 

¶ 22 The Board cites two cases for the proposition that school officials are immune from suit 

when a student is harmed off school property, even if school officials knew that violence was 

likely. In Green v. Chicago Board of Education, a high school student was shot and killed by a 

fellow student. 407 Ill. App. 3d 721, 723 (2011). Though school officials knew of rising 

tensions between rival student groups, the victim, Ruben Ivy, was required to leave school 

after dismissal. Id. A large group of armed individuals were waiting outside, and Ivy was shot. 

Id. Emily Green, the special administrator of Ivy’s estate, argued that the school should have, 

among other things, notified police and provided safe passage in and out of the school, but 
- 5 - 

failed by dismissing students from school when there were armed people outside. Id. The 

appellate court held that the “police protection” clause of section 4-102 afforded the Board 

immunity, as Green’s allegations “focus[ed] on security and police measures around the 

school.” Id. at 728. 

¶ 23 Similarly, in Albert v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2014 IL App (1st) 

123544, a student was killed in a fight on his way home from school. The appellate court 

followed Green, holding that the Board was immune from claims that it should have protected 

Albert after school and off-campus because the actions would be “police protection.” Id. ¶ 56. 

¶ 24 As in Green and Albert, Castillo alleges an attack after school and off school grounds and 

claims that the Board should have protected her from this attack. 

¶ 25 Castillo attempts to distinguish Green and Albert by arguing that she has not alleged that 

the Board should have acted in the role of police to prevent Martinez’s crime but, rather, that 

the Board should have protected her through “supervisory” actions, such as calling parents, 

calling the police, or allowing Castillo to remain at the school to avoid Martinez. According to 

Castillo, this would make section 4-102 inapplicable if Castillo could show that the Board had 

undertaken to “supervise an activity” but committed “willful and wanton conduct.” 745 ILCS 

10/3-108 (West 2016). Green rejected this precise argument. 407 Ill. App. 3d at 728 (finding 

that section 3-108 is not an exception to section 4-102, and Green’s allegations focused on 

security measures, not failure to supervise activity). Further, Castillo has provided no case, and 

we have found none, distinguishing the actions she suggests as “supervisory” rather than 

“police.” Finally, many of the “supervisory” actions the Board allegedly could have taken 

inevitably slide into the area of school discipline, which, as discussed, is covered by section 

2-201 immunity. 

¶ 26 Spoliation of Evidence 

¶ 27 Castillo alleged spoliation of evidence, specifically, that the Board had a duty to preserve 

the contents of Castillo’s school locker, including a diary in which Castillo recorded 

Martinez’s harassment. Spoliation is a form of negligence, and the general rule is that there is 

no duty to preserve evidence. Martin v. Keeley & Sons, Inc., 2012 IL 113270, ¶ 27. Castillo 

must show that an “agreement, contract, statute, special circumstance, or voluntary 

undertaking” gave rise to a duty by the Board to preserve the diary and that a reasonable person

in the Board’s position “should have foreseen that the evidence was material to a potential civil 

action.” Id. 

¶ 28 The claim fails on the second prong of foreseeability. Castillo has not alleged facts 

indicating that the diary’s evidentiary worth would have been foreseeable by a reasonable 

person in the Board’s position. There is no allegation that Castillo, or anyone else, told school 

officials that she was recording Martinez’s harassment or that she even had a diary in her 

locker. Nor has Castillo explained why a reasonable school employee cleaning out Castillo’s 

locker would recognize that the object contained the factual basis of an eventual lawsuit. 

Differentiating the diary from the normal locker contents of a high school student would have 

required the school employees to open and read it, which they certainly had no responsibility to 

do. Disposing of the locker contents may have been careless, but Castillo did not allege 

sufficient facts to show that the Board committed spoliation of evidence. 

¶ 29 Affirmed.