reasonable inferences that favor the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255; Bay v.

Cassens Transport Co,, 212 F.3d 969, 972 (7th Cir. 2000).

DISCUSSION

I. July 1999 Request

Although in the summer of 1999 Hoecker denied the Hassbergers’ request to attend
Algebra I at the District, the 1999 request failed to comply with the requirements of the
governing Illinois statute, Pursuant to 735 II.CS 5/10-20.24 students in private schools can
request to attend a public school on a part-time basis. However, the statute statcs that a
“[r]equest for attendance in the following school year must be submitted by the nonpublic school
principal to the public school before May1!,” The letter sent to Hoecker in 1999 was sent by
Sharon Hassberger rather than St. Patrick’s school principal and the letter was dated July 18,
1999, which was after May 1. Therefore, the 1999 request to attend Algebra I was not properly
submitted and thus we grant summary judgment to the extent that Plaintiffs seek to recover based

on a denial of the 1999 request.

II. Equal Protection Claim

In Count TT of the complaint Plaintiffs allege that the District violated Jeff's equal
protection rights. If an equal protection claim focuses on the denial of a fundamental right or
involves the fact that the plaintiff is a member of a suspect class then such claims are examined
under the strict scrutiny test. Martin v. Shawano-Gresham School Dist., 296 F.3d 701, 712 (7"
Cir. 2002). All other equal protection claims are examined under the deferential rational basis
test. Je.; Smith v, Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 429-30 (7" Cir. 1997), The right to a public education

is not a fundamental right. Martin, 296 F.3d at 712; Smith, 129 F.3d at 429.



1027, 1029 (4th Cir. 1981)(stating that the “[d]ecisions by educational authorities which turn on
evaluation of the academic performance of a student as it relates to promotion are peculiarly
within the expertise of educators and are particularly inappropriate for review in a judicial
context.) Johnpoll v. Ellias, 513 F.Supp. 430, 432 (D.C.N.Y. 1980)(stating that the court
“cannot be used as a vehicle to review fundamental administrative decisions such as student
placement), Therefore we grant the motion for summary judgement on the procedural due

process claim.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, we grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
judg!

Sa 2V-Gahy—

Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
United States District Court Judge

Dated: If- /8- “3



College while he was a full time eighth grader at Saint Patrick’s. Jeffis currently enrolled at
Bennett Academy for his highschool education. Plaintiffs’ two count complaint alleges that the
District violated Jeff's equal protection rights and that the District violated Jeff's procedural due

process rights.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party, reveals that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In seeking a grant of
summary judgment the moving party must identify “those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions,
answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any’ which it
believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R, Civ. P. 56(c)). This initial burden may be satisfied by
presenting specific evidence on a particular issue or by pointing out “an absence of evidence to
support the non-moving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S, at 325. Once the movant has met this
burden, the non-moving party cannot simply rest on the allegations in the pleadings, but, “by
affidavits or as otherwise provided for in [Rule 56], must set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). A “genuine issue” in the context of a
motion for summary judgment is nol simply a “metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”
Matsushita Elec, Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rather, a
genuine issue of material fact exists when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S, 242, 248
(1986); Jasolia v. Philip Morris, Inc., 216 1..3d 596, 599 (7th Cir. 2000). The court must

consider the record as a whole in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all



Plaintiffs’ claim will be reviewed under the rational basis test because Jeff is not a
member of a suspect class and his right to a public education is not a fundamental right. The
U.S. Supreme Court has held that an individual may state a “class of one” equal protection claim
if the individual has “been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that
there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.” Martin, 296 F.3d at 712 (quoting
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000)). In this case Plaintiffs have not
identified one other student that is similarly situated to Jelf. There is no evidence that another
student enrolled in a private school attempted to take a math course on a part- time basis in the
District and was assigned to a lower level than was requested. We find that no reasonable juror
could conclude that Plaintiffs should prevail under the rational basis review. Hoecker is an
educator whose duties include the overseeing of the part time enrollments, Hoecker spoke to the
principal of St, Patrick’s and to Jeff’s math teacher at St. Patrick’s. Hoecker noted that Jeff
studied Algebra I under a different textbook than is used in the District. Jefftook Algebra | as an
independent study rather than in a structured class environment and his teacher only assisted him
when he requested assistance. Jeff's grades in Algebra I were lower than his grades in other
classes. Hoecker reasonably determined that Jeff's proper place was in the honors Algebra |.
Plaintiffs prescnt a litany of persons that disagree with Hoecker. Plaintiffs contend that Jeff's
principal and his teacher at St. Patrick’s thought that Jeff was ready for Algebra II or Geometry.
Plaintiffs contend that Jeffs parents thought he was ready. Plaintiffs cven argue that Jeff thought
that he was ready for Algebra II or Geometry. However, Hoecker is the person charged with the
responsibility of determining what class was appropriate for Jeff based on his background. We
find that no reasonable jury could find that Hoccker acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

Therefore, we grant the motion for summary judgment on the equal protection claim.



Minate Order Form (06/93)

\eo

nited States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois

ramet AMhged ser | Samuel Der-Yeghiayan | Wing Sede ter

CASE NUMBER 00 C 7873 DATE 11/13/2003

CASE Hassberger vs. Board of Education

TITLE

Lin the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, und (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.}
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Oo Filed motion of [ usc listing in “Motion” box above.)
(2) o Brief in support of motion due_
@) oO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue__
(4) a Ruling/Hearingon__ssetfor at
(5) Q Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor at
(6) a) Pretrial conference{held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on __—setfor_ at.
(7) im] Trial[sct for/re-sct for]on_ at.
(8) oO [BenchyJury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at__
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) CLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a\(2).

(10) Ml [Other docket entry] This matter is before the Court on Defendants Board of Education, Centra

qa)

Community Unit Schoo! District 301 and William Hoecker, District Superintendent’s motion for

summary judgment. For the reasons stated on the attached memorandum opinion, we grant the motion
for summary judgment in favor of the defendants. All pending dates and motions are hereby stricken as
moot, Enter Memorandum Opinion. Terminating case,

For further detail sec Memorandum Opinion attached to the original minute order,

No notices required, advised in open court,
No natives required.

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone,

Docketing to mail notices,

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge,

courtraom

MW deputy's

: sj Document, ue
Number."
umber of notices, ihe
NOY 14 2009
dove docketeu LZ
date bind potice

initials

Datedtime received in va
contral Clerk's OMice

mailing deputy initials



III. Procedural Due Process Claim

Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants violated Jeff's procedural due process claims. To
establish a procedural due process claim a plaintiff must establish: 1) that he was deprived of a
protected property or liberty interest, and 2) that the plaintiff was deprived of that interest without
adequate procedural protections. Galdikas v. Fagan, 342 F.3d 684, 691 (7" Cir. 2003). An
individual docs have a property interest in public education in state-cstablished and state-
maintained school systems. Martin, 296 F.3d at 705; Smith, 129 F.3d at 428. In this case,
although we recognize that Jeff has a protected property interest in a public education, there is no
protected property interest in choosing the class of his choice. The District was directed to allow
students to enter the District part time pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/10-20.24, but the statute does not
direct the District to allow the student to enter the class of his choice, Plaintiffs argue that
pursuant to 105 ILCS 5/10-20,9a(b) that the District was required to promote students based on
their academic performance and successful completion of the curriculum, However, in this case
that is exactly what Hoecker contends that he did. [oecker found that although Jeff took an
independent study entitled Algebra J at St, Patrick’s, Jeff's knowledge in the summer of 2000
was comparable to the Algebra I honors course al the District. Plaintiffs also make the argument
that if the District can choose what class part time students are placed in, the right to part- time
attendance is meaningless because the District could choose to put a student in band class rather
than a math class. This argument is ridiculous. The District obviously does not have unbridled
discretion as to what class a student is placed in, but as in the instant case, the difference between
Algebra I and Algebra II is minimal. We find that no reasonable jury could find in Plaintiffs’
favor on the procedural due process claim, See Epperson v. State of Ark., 393 U.S. 97, 104

(1968)(stating that the courts should not interfere with the daily operation of school systems

unless a conflict “sharply implicate[s] basic constitutional values); Sandlin v. Johnson, 643 F.2d



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

JEFFREY HASSBERGER, a Minor,
by his father and next friend, JEFFREY
HASSBERGER,

Plaintiff,

v No, 00 C 7873
BOARD OF EDUCATION, CENTRAL
COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT
301, and WILLIAM HOECKER, in his
official capacity,

wwe eee eee eres we

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
SAMUEL DER-YEGHIAYAN, District Judge
This matter is before the court on Defendants Board of Education, Central
Community Unit School District 301 (“District”) and William IHoecker, District Superintendent’ s

motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, we grant the motion for summary

judgment.

BACKGROUND
In June 1999 Plaintiff Jeffery Hassberger (“Jeff”) completed sixth grade at St. Patrick’s
Catholic School (“Saint Patrick’s”) in Saint Charles, Illinois. At the end of Jeff's sixth grade
year his assessment test indicated he was double advanced, performing at two grade levels above

his own in mathematics. In July 1999 Jeff's mother, Sharon Hassberger, called District

ytl-



Superintendent William Hoecker (“I Toecker”) on the phone and wrote a letter to Hoecker
requesting that her son be admitted in the fall on a part-time basis into the Algebra I class at the
District. St. Patrick's did not offer Algebra I for the seventh grade, Hoecker denied the request.
In the 1999- 2000 academic year Jeff proceeded to take Algebra | as an independent study at St.
Patrick's. Sharon Leitsch (“Leitsch) taught seventh grade math at St. Patrick’s. She did not
lecture Jeff for Algebra I, but instead allowed Jeff to work on his own and assisted Jeff only
when he requested assistance. Jeff's quarterly grades in Algebra I included (wo “B”s, one “B-,“*
and one “C.” Jeff's grades in his other courses in the 1999-2000 academic year included two
“A+"s, nineteen “A”s, five “A-“s, one “B+,” and two “Bs,

In the spring of 2000 the Hassbergers decided to request that Jeff be allowed to take
Algebra IT or Geometry at the District, St. Patrick’s is a Kindergarten through eighth grade
school and thus Saint Patrick’s does not offer Algebra II or Geometry in its curriculum, Saint
Patrick’s Principal, Joseph Battisto (“Battisto”), sent a letter dated April 19, 2000, to Hoecker
requesting that Jeff be permitted to take Algebra II or Geometry within the District in the 2000-
2001 academic year. ‘The letter was signed by both Battisto and Leitsch, Hoecker investigated
Jeff's request by contacting Battisto and Leitsch. Ina phone conversation Leitsch described the
Algebra I course to Hoecker and told him that she thought that Jeff was prepared for Algebra II
or Geometry. Leitsch mailed to Hoecker all of Jeff’s grades, homework, quizzes, and tests, test
scores in Algebra and provided Hoecker with the name of the text book Jeff used [or his Algebra
I course.

Iloecker agreed to allow Jeff to enroll as a part-time student. However, Hoecker decided
to place Jeff in an Honors Algebra I class within the District. Hoecker claims that he based his
decision on his review of Jeff's Algebra T course and grades at St. Patrick’s. Jeff declined his

placement in the [lonors Algebra I class and instead enrolled in Algebra II at Elgin Community