1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERNDIVISION

DANASMOLER, )

 )

Plaintiff, ) Case No. 20 CV 00493

vs. )

)

BOARD OF EDUCATION for WEST )

NORTHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT #31, et al. )

)

 Defendants. )

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendants, Board of Education of West Northfield School District #31, (the “Board”), 

West Northfield School District #31 (the “School District or “District”), individually and Nancy 

Hammer, Jeffrey Steres, Daphne Frank, Robert Resis and Robert Spector (collectively the 

“individual Defendants”) by and through their attorneys, Lynn Himes and Darcee Williams of 

Himes, Petrarca & Fester, hereby submit their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff, Dana Smoler’s 

(“Plaintiff”) Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) and in support 

thereof, state as follows. 

I. Introduction

1. On January 22, 2020, the Plaintiff, a former tenured teacher at the School District, 

filed a lawsuit against the Board of Education, the School District and five individual Board 

members. Docket No. 1. On February 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed her amended complaint which is the 

operative complaint (“Complaint”) in this matter. Docket No. 6; MTD Memo, Ex. 11

. The fivecount Complaint alleges: Count I, violation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; Count 

1 Simultaneous with this Motion, Defendants are filing a Memorandum in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss. All 

exhibits are attached to the Memorandum and are cited herein as “MTD Memo, Ex. ___.” The Memorandum is 

incorporated herein by this reference. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:97
2

II, a state law defamation claim; Count III, violation of liberty interest; Count IV, coerced 

resignation; and Count V, a State law claim of breach of contract. Id.

2. Plaintiff’s allegations arise as a result of her own unprofessional conduct in making 

a false report alleging a colleague harassed her. As a result of Plaintiff’s conduct, the Board 

adopted a Notice to Remedy directing the Plaintiff to take certain actions to remedy her conduct. 

3. At no time was Plaintiff deprived of any of the rights to which she was entitled. 

She was never disciplined for her conduct. She was simply directed to remedy the deficiencies in 

her conduct by taking certain corrective action consistent with the professional conduct expected 

of all school employees and in the best interest of students. The Board exercised its statutory right 

to issue the Notice to Remedy and Plaintiff now claims her rights were violated. 

II. Parties

4. Plaintiff named as Defendants: (1) the Board of Education of West Northfield 

School District #31, (2) West Northfield School District #31; (3) Nancy Hammer; (4) Jeffrey 

Steres; (5) Daphne Frank; (6) Robert Resis; and (7) Robert Spector. 

5. The Defendant, the Board of Education of West Northfield School District #31 is 

the governing body of the School District and is the legal entity that can sue and be sued pursuant 

to the Illinois School Code. 105 ILCS 5/10-2.

6. The Defendant, West Northfield School District #31, is a local public-school

district located in Northbrook, Illinois. The District operates one elementary and one middle 

school and has an enrollment of approximately 868 students. The District is governed by a duly 

elected, seven-member Board of Education, also named as a Defendant.

7. Nancy Hammer, Jeffrey Steres, Daphne Frank, Robert Resis and Robert Spector 

are members of the Board of Education who were present at a Board meeting on January 24, 2019. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:98
3

8. Plaintiff, Dana Smoler is a former tenured teacher at the District’s elementary 

school and, at all relevant times, a member of the teacher’s association. 

III. Standard of Review

9. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint, 

not its merits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990). 

10. In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all wellpleaded facts in the plaintiff’s complaint and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in 

the plaintiff’s favor. Anchor Bank, FSB v. Hofer, 649 F. 3d 610, 614 (7th Cir. 2011). 

11. In order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must include 

sufficient facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Justice v. Town of Cicero, 

556 US 662, 678-79, 577 F.3d 768, 771 (7th Cir. 2009). 

12. Legal conclusions are insufficient to state a claim to satisfy the requirements of 

Rule 12(b)(6). Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950-51 (2009).

13. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) challenges federal jurisdiction and the 

plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the elements necessary for jurisdiction have been 

met. Scanlan v. Eisenburg, 669 F.3d 838, 841-42 (7th Cir. 2012). 

14. In ruling on a 12(b)(1) motion, the court may look outside of the complaint’s 

allegations and consider whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue of jurisdiction. Ezekiel 

v. Michel, 66 F.3d 894, 897 (7th Cir. 1995).

IV. Facts

15. In the fall of the 2018/2019 school year, Plaintiff had a difference of opinion with a 

colleague regarding a student. MTD Memo Ex. 3, p. 2, ¶ I.A.1; Doc. #6, Page ID #37. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:99
4

16. Thereafter, in November 2018, Plaintiff reported to her assistant principal that she 

was emotionally abused, bullied and harassed by that colleague. MTD Memo Ex. 3, p. 2, ¶ I.A; 

Doc. #6, Page ID #37. 

17. The District investigated Plaintiff’s allegations against her colleague pursuant to 

the Board’s Workplace Harassment Policy2 and found that Plaintiff’s allegations that her colleague 

emotionally abused, bullied and harassed her, were false. MTD Memo Ex. 3, p. 2, ¶ I.A.3-4; Doc. 

#6, Page ID #37.

18. On January 24, 2019, a regular Board of Education meeting took place. The five 

individual Board member Defendants present at the Board meeting voted to adopt a Resolution 

authorizing a Notice to Remedy (“NTR”) pursuant to 105 ILCS 5/24-12. See Resolution of Board 

of Education authorizing adoption of a Notice to Remedy, attached to the MTD Memo as Ex. 2 

and attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint as Ex. A; see also Notice to Remedy, attached to MTD Memo

as Ex. 3 and attached to the Plaintiff’s Complaint as Exhibit B. 

19. The NTR instructs Plaintiff to “remove and remedy each and every cause, charge, 

defect and reason stated in Exhibit 1, and to follow all directives.” MTD Memo Ex. 3, p. 1, Doc. 

#6, Page ID #34.

20. The last two sentences of the NTR state: “Please feel free to request assistance and 

aid of members of the administrative staff to bring about a correction of the deficiencies. It is our 

hope that these deficiencies will be promptly remedied and never reoccur.” MTD Memo Ex. 3, p. 1. 

21. The NTR identifies the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s conduct discussed above regarding 

her false report of emotional abuse, bullying and harassment and the required corrective action

Plaintiff must undertake to remedy her conduct. MTD Memo Ex. 3, Doc. #6, Page ID #34, 37-39. 

2 The Board’s Workplace Harassment Policy provides that employees should use the Board’s Uniform Grievance 

Procedure to report claims of harassment. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:100
5

22. Among the corrective action required of Plaintiff is that she is to refrain from making 

false reports about colleagues, apologize to her colleague about whom she made the false allegations, 

meet with her colleague and work on ways to foster a more positive relationship, respect the 

professional opinions of her colleagues and strive for mutual respect and cooperation, among other 

required corrective action. MTD Memo Ex. 3, pp. 3-4, ¶ II; Doc. #6, Page ID #38-39.

23. The NTR further provides that, “your failure to comply with each and every 

requirement of this Notice to Remedy may result in discipline, up to and including termination of 

your employment.” (emphasis added). MTD Memo Ex. 3, p. 4; Doc. #6, Page ID #39.

24. The NTR did not change the Plaintiff’s salary, compensation, benefits, assignment 

or her job duties in any way. MTD Memo Exs. 2-3; Doc. #6, Page ID #34-39.

25. The NTR did not result in Plaintiff’s suspension (with or without pay), or 

termination or any form of discipline. Id.

26. Plaintiff remained in the same position as she was in before the NTR was adopted 

as she was in after the NTR was adopted. Id.

27. On April 1, 2019, Plaintiff went on FMLA leave. MTD Memo Ex. 1, ¶43; Doc. 

#6, Page ID #31.

28. On July 17, 2019, Plaintiff resigned from the School District. MTD Memo Ex. 1, 

¶44; Doc. #6, Page ID #31.

V. Argument

A. Claims Against Board Members in Their Official Capacity Should Be Dismissed

29. Plaintiff’s claims against the individual Board members in their official capacity 

are redundant and should be dismissed. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:101
6

30. Official capacity suits are equivalent to suing the entity itself, Monell v. Dep't of Soc.

Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2035 (1978). Therefore, naming the individual

defendants in their official capacities serves no legitimate purpose. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.

159, 165, 105 S. Ct. 3099, 3106-07 (1985), Kiser v. Naperville Cmty. Unit, 227 F. Supp. 2d 954, 

960-961 (N.D. Ill. 2002). 

31. Accordingly, the claims against the individual school board member defendants in 

their official capacity should be dismissed.

B. School District Improperly Named as Party

32. Plaintiff incorrectly named West Northfield School District #31 as a Defendant. 

33. The School District’s legal identity is the Board of Education of West Northfield 

School District 31. Only the Board, which is also named as a Defendant, may sue and be sued. 

105 ILCS 5/10-2, see also, Board of Education of Bremen High S.D. No. 228 v. Mitchell, 387 Ill. 

App. 3d 117, 124, 899 N.E.2d 1160, 1166 (1st Dist. 2008).

34. Accordingly, West Northfield School District 31 should be dismissed as a 

Defendant in this action. 

C. No Deprivation of Property Interest Triggering Right to Loudermill Hearing 

35. In Count I, Plaintiff alleges she did not receive a Loudermill hearing because she 

did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Board allegedly imposed 

disciplinary action against her. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill et al., 470 U.S. 532, 

105 S. Ct. 1487 (1985). 

36. The Loudermill case provides that an individual be given an opportunity for a

hearing before he/she is deprived of any significant property interest. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 542,

105 S. Ct. at 1493. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:102
7

37. To prevail on a claim for the deprivation of property without due process, a plaintiff

must establish that she holds a protected property interest. Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 538, 105 S. Ct. at

1491.

38. The Board adopted a NTR in January 2019 pursuant 105 ILCS 5/24-12, directing

Plaintiff to remedy her deficient conduct. 

39. No significant property interest is implicated by the Board’s adoption of the NTR.

40. The NTR merely advises Plaintiff that she is to remove and remedy the conduct

described therein and follow directives to avoid being disciplined in the future for engaging in the

same conduct. MTD Memo Ex. 3, Doc. #6, Page ID #34, 37-39. 

41. While the District could have imposed some type of discipline on Plaintiff outside

of the NTR, none was imposed here. 

42. Plaintiff suffered no loss of salary, compensation or benefits upon adoption of the 

NTR. She was not suspended with or without pay, or terminated. She was only directed to remedy 

her deficient conduct. 

43. Suspensions with pay do not infringe property interests and do not entitle a party to 

a Loudermill hearing before imposing the suspension. See, e.g., Pitts v. Board of Educ. of U.S.D.

305, Salina, Kansas, 869 F.2d 555, 556 (10th Cir. 1989).

44. Therefore, a NTR, without more, could not implicate any property interest. See,

e.g., Pitts, 869 F.2d at 556 (10th Cir. 1989), Cronin v. Town of Amesbury, 895 F. Supp. 375, 386 

(D. Mass. 1995), Hicks v. City of Watonga, Okla., 942 F.2d 737, 746 n.4 (10th Cir. 1991).

45. Further, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that a NTR cannot be grieved because 

it is a statutory requirement in order for the board to move down the continuum towards the 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:103
8

discharge. Board of Educ. of Rockford Sch. Dist. No. 205 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations 

Bd., 156 Ill.2d 556, 638 N.E.2d 1113 (1994).

46. Because Plaintiff was not deprived of any significant property interest as a result of 

the Board’s actions in adopting the NTR, Plaintiff’s Loudermill claim should be dismissed. 

D. No Discipline Imposed to Trigger Weingarten Rights

47. In Count I, Plaintiff also alleges violations of her “Weingarten” rights because she

allegedly did not have any union representation when the Board was contemplating disciplinary action 

against her. NLRB v. Weingarten, 420 U.S. 251, 95 S.Ct 959 (1975), MTD Memo, Ex. 1, pp. 5-6. 

48. Weingarten rights are a worker's right to have a union representative during an 

interview that she reasonably believes may lead to disciplinary action. Id. 

49. As discussed, no disciplinary action was taken against Plaintiff. Hence, no 

Weingarten rights were triggered. 

50. Because no disciplinary action was imposed on Plaintiff, she was not entitled to 

Union representation during the investigation of her allegations against her colleague or during the 

Board meeting when the NTR was adopted. 

51. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Weingarten claim should be dismissed. 

E. No Procedural Due Process Violations By Individual Board Members 

52. In addition to raising her procedural due process claim against the Board, Plaintiff 

alleges that individual Board members violated her procedural due process rights by not apprising

her of the accusations against her or inviting her to the January 2019 Board meeting to discuss the 

allegations. MTD Memo, Ex. 1, p. 4. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:104
9

53. As discussed above, Plaintiff had no right to notice or an opportunity to be heard 

and no entitlement to union representation before the Board adopted the NTR. Therefore, her 

procedural rights were not violated. 

54. Moreover, the individual Board member’s actions in voting to adopt the NTR could 

not serve as a basis for a procedural due process violation. Roberts v. Board of Educ., 25 F. Supp. 

2d 866, 868-869 (N.D. Ill. 1998). 

55. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s procedural due process claims against the individual Board 

members should be dismissed. 

F. Allegations of Defamation Unsupported

56. Count II of Plaintiff’s complaint alleges defamation per se on the basis that the NTR

“which was adopted at a public BOE [meeting] branded plaintiff as a liar.” MTD Memo. Ex. 1, ¶31. 

57. Liability for defamation exists where there is: a false and defamatory statement

concerning another, an unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party, fault amounting

at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and either actionability of the statement

irrespective of special damages or the existence of special damages caused by the publication.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558 (1977); Krasinski v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 124 Ill. 2d

483, 530 N.E.2d 468 (1988).

58. A publication is defamatory per se if the defamatory character of the statement is

apparent on its face and extrinsic facts are not necessary to explain it. Brown & Williamson

Tobacco Corp. v. Jacobson, 713 F.2d 262, 267 (7th Cir. 1983), Ianson v. Zion-Benton Twp. High 

Sch., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1931, *18-19 (N.D. Ill. 2001). 

59. Here, Plaintiff has not shown the alleged defamatory statement was published to 

the public. MTD Memo, Ex. 1, ¶¶ 31, 33. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:105
10

60. The open meeting minutes of the Board meeting on January 24, 2019 reflect only 

that a motion was made to approve the NTR regarding Plaintiff and the motion passed. See, MTD 

Memo, Ex. 4. The Court may take judicial notice of the minutes which are publicly available on 

the Defendants’ website. Chavarin v. Westchester Public Library Board of Trustees, No. 15 C 

2040, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114345, at *10 n.2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 28, 2015). 

61. There is nothing in the minutes to support Plaintiff’s allegation that the 

Defendants made a defamatory statement, let alone that the NTR itself was published 

during the open session of the Board meeting. 

62. Moreover, Plaintiff has not plead that anyone from the pubic was present at 

the Board meeting to see or hear any allegedly defamatory statement. 

63. Even if deemed published, "[i]t is well settled that, even if an alleged

statement falls into one of the categories of words that are defamatory per se, it will not be

actionable per se if it is reasonably capable of an innocent construction." Green v. Rogers,

234 Ill.2d 478, 499, 917 N.E. 2d 450, 463 (2009), Nelson v. Bd. of Educ., 292 F. Supp. 3d 

792, 800 (N.D. Ill. 2017). 

64. The innocent construction rule requires that, "A written or oral statement is

to be considered in context, with the words and the implications therefrom given their

natural and obvious meaning; if, as so construed, the statement may reasonably be

innocently interpreted or reasonably be interpreted as referring to someone other than the

plaintiff it cannot be actionable per se." Id. 

65. Plaintiff alleges that the NTR “branded” her as a “liar.” Nowhere does the 

NTR use the term “liar.” 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:106
11

66. Taken in context, the deficiency in Plaintiff’s conduct addressed in the NTR

is her making a false report and false accusations regarding a colleague as a result of 

differing professional opinions. MTD Memo Ex. 3, Doc. #6, Page ID #34, 37-39.

67. The NTR is capable of innocent interpretation. While possibly unflattering 

or embarrassing, the NTR does not “brand Plaintiff a liar.” 

68. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s defamation claim should be dismissed. 

G. Individual Defendants Immune from Liability for Alleged Defamation

69. Even if the Plaintiff had a valid claim for defamation, the individual 

defendants have an absolute privilege from liability for defamation because the alleged 

defamatory statements were made within the scope of their official duties. Klug v. Chicago 

Sch. Reform Bd. of Trustees, 197 F.3d 853, 861 (7th Cir. 1999), Blair v. Walker, 64 Ill.2d

1, 349 N.E.2d 385 (1976).

70. All of Plaintiff’s allegations against the individual Board Member 

Defendants relate to their official duties occurring at a Board meeting. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff’s defamation claim against the individual Board members should be dismissed. 

H. No Deprivation of Liberty Interest Occurred

71. In Count III, Plaintiff alleges violations of her liberty interest in pursuing a

teaching career. MTD Memo, Ex. 1, p. 6. 

72. A claim that a public employer has violated an employee's right to pursue 

her occupation requires action by the employer that stigmatizes the employee; public 

disclosure of the stigmatizing information; and a tangible loss of other employment 

opportunities as a result of the public disclosure. Roller v. Board of Education, No. 05 C 

3638, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2269, at *8-10 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2006). 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:107
12

73. Plaintiff’s claim must fail because not only is the alleged stigmatizing

statement not sufficiently severe, Plaintiff cannot show the information was publicly

disclosed, or that she has a tangible loss of other employment opportunities. 

74. Therefore, the Plaintiff does not have an actionable claim that she was 

deprived of a liberty interest. 

I. Plaintiff’s Allegations of Coerced Resignation Fail to State a Claim

75. Plaintiff alleges coerced resignation in Count IV. 

76. A coerced resignation claim requires an explicit direction that the plaintiff 

resign. Ulrey v. Reichhart, 941 F.3d 255, 261 (7th Cir. 2019), Farlin v. The Library Store,

Inc., No. 08-CV-1194, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34924 (C.D. Ill. 2010).

77. There are no allegations to support Plaintiff’s claim that she was coerced 

into resigning by Defendants’ explicit direction to remedy. Indeed, as noted above, the last 

two sentences of the NTR state: “Please feel free to request assistance and aid of members 

of the administrative staff to bring about a correction of the deficiencies. It is our hope that 

these deficiencies will be promptly remedied and never reoccur.” MTD Memo Ex. 3, p. 1.

78. Even if Plaintiff had properly alleged coerced resignation, her claim still 

fails because the NTR was not adopted incident to her loss of employment. 

79. The alleged stigma to Plaintiff’s reputation must accompany the alleged

adverse employment decision. Siegert v. Gilley, 111 S. Ct. 1789 (1991); see also Koch v.

Stanard, 962 F.2d 605, 608 (7th Cir. 1992), Wroblewski v. Washburn, 965 F.2d 452, 456-

457 (7th Cir. 1992). 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:108
13

80. The NTR was adopted on January 24, 2019. Plaintiff resigned on July 17, 

20193, almost six months later. Therefore, her coerced resignation claim should be dismissed. 

J. Breach of Contract Not Properly Plead

81. In Count V, Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract claim based on an alleged 

violation of the Board of Education’s policy titled the Uniform Grievance Procedure 

(“UGP”). Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated the UGP in various ways. 

82. To state a cause of action for breach of contract, the plaintiff must allege facts

establishing that the parties exchanged an offer, an acceptance and consideration. Mulvey v.

Carl Sandburg High School, 2016 IL App (1st) 151615, ¶ 29, 66 N.E.3d 507, citing Duldulao

v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center, 115 Ill.2d 482, 489, 505 N.E.2d 314, 318 (1987).

83. "An employee handbook or other policy statement creates enforceable

contractual rights if the traditional requirements for contract formation are present." Three 

requirements must be met for an employee handbook or policy statement to form a 

contract: (1) the language of the policy statement must contain a promise clear enough that 

an employee would reasonably believe an offer has been made; (2) the statement must be 

disseminated to the employee in such a manner that the employee is aware of its contents 

and reasonably believes it to be an offer; and (3) the employee must accept the offer by 

"commencing or continuing to work after learning of the policy statement." Duldulao, 115

Ill.2d at 490, 505 N.E.2d at 318.

84. Plaintiff has not alleged an offer, acceptance or consideration let alone the

three requirements set forth in Duldulao. Therefore, her breach of contract claim should

be dismissed. 

3 Paragraph 44 of Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Plaintiff resigned on July 17, 2020. Defendants assume an 

inadvertent typographical error as Plaintiff resigned July 17, 2019. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:109
14

85. Moreover, even if the breach of contract claim was properly pled, her claim 

still must fail. Pursuant to 105 ILCS 5/10-20.5, the UGP sets forth a complaint or grievance 

procedure to be used to investigate and resolve various types of complaints when an 

individual believes his/her rights have been violated. MTD Memo, Ex. 5. 

86. An alleged violation of the UGP cannot be pursued as a breach of contract 

claim. Lucero v. Nettle Creek School Corp., 566 F.3d 720, 732-33 (7th Cir. 2009). 

87. Moreover, it is clear that Plaintiff’s claim was investigated as the NTR 

indicates that an investigation took place and the finding was supported by the investigatory 

interviews and written communications between Plaintiff and her colleague. Ex. 3, p. 2, ¶I.A.3. 

88. The fact that Plaintiff was unhappy with the outcome of the investigation, 

does not amount to a breach of the UGP. 

89. Lastly, the breach of contract claim should be dismissed because Plaintiff 

has no protectible interest in the procedural rights of the UGP. A.J. & R.J. v. Butler Illinois

Sch. Dist. 53, No. 17 C 2849, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49121 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2018). 

90. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim must fail. 

K. Plaintiff Suffered No Adverse Employment Action

91. Within her breach of contract claim, Plaintiff alleges the NTR was issued in 

retaliation for voicing her concerns. To succeed on a claim for retaliation under Title VI, a

plaintiff must establish that (1) she engaged in protected activity, (2) her educational

institution took an adverse action against her, and (3) a causal connection existed between

the protected activity and the adverse action. Brown v. William Rainey Harper College, No. 

16 C 1071, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121333, at *14 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 1, 2017). 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:110
15

92. There was no adverse employment action taken against Plaintiff here. As 

discussed, she was not terminated, reassigned or demoted and she suffered no loss or 

change in benefits as a result of the issuance of the NTR. 

93. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims as well as any ancillary 

retaliation claim should be dismissed. 

VI. Dismissal Arguments Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)

A. This Court Should Not Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction 

94. Plaintiff alleges both federal and State law claims. Defendants move to 

dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims. 

95. In the event, Plaintiff’s federal claims are dismissed and any State law claims 

remain viable, this Court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State 

law claims. 

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF WEST 

NORTHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT #31, WEST NORTHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT #31, 

individually and NANCY HAMMER, JEFFREY STERES, DAPHNE FRANK, ROBERT RESIS 

AND ROBERT SPECTOR, pray for this Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Complaint and for any 

further relief this Court deems fair and just.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ DARCEE C. WILLIAMS

On Behalf of Defendants

A. LYNN HIMES, #3123787

DARCEE C. WILLIAMS, 6276211

HIMES, PETRARCA & FESTER, CHTD.

180 N. Stetson, Suite 3100 

Chicago, Illinois 60601

G:\WP51\COMMON\SD0\SD031C\Smoler - Litigation Threat\Pleadings, Motion and Court Submissions\MTD Final\MTD FINAL.docx

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 17 Filed: 06/26/20 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:111