-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DANA SMOLER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BOARD OF EDUCATION for WEST 

NORTHFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT #31, 

and NANCY HAMMER, JEFFREY 

STERES, DAPHNE FRANK, ROBERT 

REISS and BOB SPECTOR, in their 

individual capacities,

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 20 CV 00493

HONORABLE JORGE ALONSO

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Now comes the plaintiff, Dana Smoler by and through her attorney, Steven E. Glink, and 

complaining against the defendants, states as follows.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case involves a young idealistic teacher who fell out of favor with her principal, her 

superintendent, her union and ultimately the board of education because she questioned the way 

one of her colleagues, K.L., a member of the union’s executive board, was treating plaintiff in 

regards to how plaintiff was advocating for commonly shared minority students who were also

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 23 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:228
-2-

on District structured behavior plans. Smoler followed policies and was seeking support and 

guidance from her direct supervisor for assistance in resolving conflict and clarification 

surrounding these structured behavior plans. During that conversation with her direct supervisor, 

no formal written complaint was ever made. Smoler was further victimized by the school board 

and board employees who treated her in an extremely hostile manner after she raised her 

concerns to the assistant principal. Ultimately, the defendants violated Smoler’s rights to due 

process of law by disciplining her to wit, issuing a Notice to Remedy without advising Smoler of 

the accusations against her before the BOE and without giving her any opportunity to respond to 

any allegations against her before imposing the NTR. The defendants’ NTR publically branded

Smoler as a liar and ultimately ruined her career as a teacher. Smoler now seeks the justice she 

deserves.

THE PARTIES

1. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Dana Smoler (“Smoler” was employed by the Board 

of Education (“the BOE”) of West Northfield School District #31 (“the District”) as an 

excellent rated tenured teacher at Winkelman School (WS).

2. The BOE is a group of private citizens who have been elected to their offices and have all 

powers given to them, express or implied, by § 5/10 of the Illinois School Code, including 

but not limited to the hiring and dismissal of employees.

3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, all of the named individual defendants had been 

elected to the BOE for the district and had all powers, express or implied, provided by law. 

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

4. This case is brought pursuant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the 

U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. 1983 to protect plaintiff’s rights.

5. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.

6. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1392.

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 23 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:229
-3-

7. Defendants reside and have their principal place of business in Northbrook, Cook County, 

Illinois.

8. All material acts pleaded in this complaint occurred in Northbrook, Cook County, Illinois.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

9. At all times relevant to this complaint. Smoler had been employed by the BOE/ the district as 

an excellent rated tenured PE / Wellness teacher at WS.

10. On several occasions, plaintiff experienced unprofessional, negative interactions with one of 

her colleagues, KL regarding some minority students who were on district structured 

behavior plans which they had in common.

11. On November 9, 2018, pursuant to board policies #2:001 # 5:006 and #5.029 (copies of 

which are attached as exhibits A and B respectively), plaintiff met confidentially with one of 

her direct supervisors, assistant principal, Nino Alvarez, in good faith, to discuss this 

situation and to obtain his counsel and guidance as to how plaintiff should formally address

this situation.

12. During the course of her conversation with Alvarez, plaintiff stated to Alvarez that she had 

attempted to discuss this situation directly with KL and felt abused and humiliated by KL’s

responses.

13. At no time did plaintiff ever file a formal written complaint with any complaint manager, any 

administrator or the BOE regarding the situation with KL as policies #2.001 and #5.029

indicate as plaintiff was not making a complaint: she was simply seeking guidance and 

support on how to address the situation.

14. Without any warning to the plaintiff and without her knowledge, the administration, launched 

an internal investigation into what administration labeled as “plaintiff’s complaint.”

15. At the conclusion of their internal investigation, the administration referred “plaintiff’s 

complaint” to the BOE.

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 23 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:230
-4-

 COUNT I-VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

16. This count is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.

17. Plaintiff incorporates her allegations contained in paragraphs 1-15 above as her allegations 

for this count.

18. At all times relevant to this complaint, plaintiff was a member of the West Northfield 

Teachers’ Association (WNTA), which is the exclusive bargaining agent for the West 

Northfield School District # 31.

19. At all times relevant to this complaint, there was a collective bargaining agreement in place 

and in effect between the WNTA and the BOE (a copy of Article XII (duration) is attached 

as exhibit E).

20. Pursuant to Article 5.3 of the CBA, “[E]ach teacher shall have the right to be accompanied 

by a person of his/her choosing ...at any meeting with the Board or an administrator which 

may reasonably lead to a written reprimand, a suspension or dismissal for any 

disciplinary reason’ (emphasis added) (a copy of this section is attached as ex. F).

21. Article 5.3 of the CBA also requires that “the teacher” shall be given reasonable advance 

notice of such meeting; notice of the right to representation; notice of the reason for the 

meeting and notice of the fact that disciplinary action may result.

22. The CBA created a property interest/right for plaintiff to be advised of any and all 

accusations against her AND to provide a meaningful response to the BOE before the BOE 

voted to impose any written reprimand and/or any other disciplinary action against the 

plaintiff.

23. Similarly, under the CBA, the plaintiff had a property interest/right to have a representative 

of her choice accompany her to any meeting where the BOE was contemplating issuing any 

written reprimand and/or any other disciplinary action against the plaintiff.

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 23 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:231
-5-

24. The defendants violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights to procedural due process in one or 

more of the following ways:

a) They failed to give plaintiff advance notice of any kind that they were holding a 

meeting where any written reprimand or other disciplinary action may result against 

her;

b) They failed to give plaintiff advance notice of the reasons for said meeting;

c) They failed to give plaintiff advance notice that she had a right to have a 

representative of her own choosing at said meeting;

d) They failed to provide the plaintiff with any opportunity to respond to any 

accusations against her;

e) They failed to invite plaintiff’s representative of choice to any meeting, including but 

not limited to the school board meeting of January 24, 2019 where the imposition of a 

written reprimand or other disciplinary action against the plaintiff was discussed.

25. On January 24, 2019, at a regularly schedule school board meeting, the BOE discussed this 

matter in closed /executive session. At the conclusion of that discussion, in open public 

session, the defendants voted to issue plaintiff a NTR (a copy of the BOE’s resolution is 

attached as exhibit C).

26. The NTR (attached as exhibit D) stated that plaintiff “...knowingly made false statements 

about a colleague.”

27. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, plaintiff was denied her 

constitutional right to due process of law to defend herself against the false accusations 

against her.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter a judgment in her

favor against all of the defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $200,000 plus 

costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 23 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:232
-6-

COUNT II-DEFAMATION

28. This count is a state law claim for defamation and is directed against all individual 

defendants in their personal and official capacities.

29. Plaintiff incorporates her allegations in paragraphs 1-7 above as her allegations for this count.

30. As an excellent rated tenured teacher, plaintiff has a property right to continued employment.

31. Similarly, as an excellent rated tenured teacher, plaintiff has a recognized liberty interest in 

her good name and reputation.

32. The NTR, which was adopted at a public BOE meeting publicly stated that plaintiff 

“...knowingly made false statements about a colleague”.

33. Every statement that the plaintiff made about her difficulties with KL to AP Alvarez or any 

other school district employees was truthful.

34. The statement contained in the NTR is defamatory per se because (1) it is false 

statements of fact: (2) it is not privileged communications: (3) it was made with malice in 

a deliberate attempt to retaliate against the plaintiff for raising concerns about KL’s 

treatment of the commonly shared minority student on district structured behavior plan, 

at issue and with the intent to harm the plaintiff’s reputation as a teacher; (4) they were 

published to members of the public; (5) they disparage plaintiff in the performance of her

job as an excellent rated tenured teacher because, according to the school district’s 

evaluation criteria, the teacher can be counted on to hold the highest standards of honesty, integrity, 

and confidentiality and takes a leadership role with colleagues. 

35. The false accusations contained in the NTR have caused damage to plaintiff’s personal and 

professional reputation.

36. The false accusations contained in the NTR have also caused plaintiff to suffer severe 

emotional distress, including but not limited to anxiety and PTSD.

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 23 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:233
-7-

37. Defendant’s actions have caused plaintiff to suffer “stigma plus” as that term is used in 

federal case law.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter a judgment 

against the defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $200,000.

COUNT III-VIOLATION OF LIBERTY INTEREST

38. Plaintiff incorporates her allegations in paragraphs 1-37 above as her allegations in this 

count.

39. The plaintiff has a right and a liberty occupational interest in pursuing a teaching career.

40. A teacher’s reputation for truth and honesty is an essential part of the job.

41. The defendants’ action of publicly stating that plaintiff “...knowingly made false statements 

about a colleague” has stigmatized her by words that impugn her character and impugn her 

integrity in the performance of her duties as a teacher.

42. After the BOE imposed the NTR, plaintiff consulted with several mentors, who told her that 

no school district will likely employ her after, based on the content of the NTR (e.g. plaintiff 

was effectively blacklisted).

43. In addition, the content of the NTR caused such severe emotion distress on plaintiff that she 

could not bring herself to apply for any other teaching positions.

44. Defendants’ actions have traumatized the plaintiff and caused her to suffer extreme and 

severe emotional distress, which is ongoing.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter a judgment against 

the defendants, jointly and severally in an amount in excess of $200,000, plus costs and 

reasonable attorney’s fees.

COUNT IV- CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE

45. Plaintiff incorporates her allegation in paragraphs 1-27 as her allegations in this count.

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 23 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:234
-8-

46. After the defendants imposed the NTR on the plaintiff, they created a hostile working 

environment for the plaintiff in one or more of the following ways: 

A. Administration falsely accused the plaintiff of writing/ sending negative comments 

about principal Erica Berger;

B. The administration at WS shunned and ostracized the plaintiff;

C. Administration changed plaintiff’s performance evaluation process and cycle;

D. Administration took away plaintiff’s access to the district’s network;

E. Administration took away plaintiff’s keys;

F. Administration disclosed in an email to staff that plaintiff would be out on FMLA. 

Plaintiff never gave the district any permission to disclose any information on /about 

her condition or long term leave of absence as she is protected by HIPAA. 

G. When plaintiff’s long term sub position was posted, it was posted for a long term 

maternity leave (plaintiff had staff contact her and ask if she was pregnant and had 

community members send their blessing/ try to state they were worried about her) 

47. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ collective actions, plaintiff went on FMLA 

leave for severe anxiety on April 1, 2019

48. On July 17, 2020, plaintiff resigned her position as a tenured teacher because her working 

conditions were so intolerable that no reasonable person could have been expected to endure 

it. 

WEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter a judgment against the 

defendants, jointly and severally in an amount in excess of $200,000 plus costs.

COUNT V-BREACH OF CONTRACT-RETALIATION

49. At all times relevant to this complaint, the defendant BOE had adopted various polices. 

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 23 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:235
-9-

50. Policies 2.001; 5.029 (exhibits A and B) and 2.001, the Uniform Grievance Procedure 

(attached as exhibit G) were in full force and effect at all times that plaintiff was employed 

by the BOE.

51. The BOE disseminated these policies to all of its employees including by directing the 

employees to familiarize themselves with said policies.

52. Said policies are also on the district’s website, which is accessible to the public.

53. Plaintiff understood that the BOE adopted these policies with the intent that all employees be 

bound by these policies.

54. Plaintiff understood and accepted that these policies were binding on all employees, 

including plaintiff, who signified her acceptance by continuing to work in D 31.

55. Plaintiff followed policies 5.006 and 5.029 when she consulted with AP Alvarez about her 

difficulties with her colleague.

56. Although the plaintiff never filed a formal written complaint about what she reasonably 

believed was unfair and inappropriate treatment, district administrators treated plaintiff’s 

conversation as being within the purview of the UGP and anti-harassment policies (2.001 and 

5:029).

57. In response to plaintiff’s conversation with AP Alvarez, defendants violated their UGP 

policy as well as the anti-retaliation provisions of state and federal law in one or more of the 

following ways:

a) They never appointed a complaint manager to independently investigate plaintiff’s 

concerns;

b) They failed to ensure that the plaintiff had an equal opportunity to present evidence 

during the investigation;

c) The complaint manager never presented a written report of her findings to the 

superintendent;

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 23 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:236
-10-

d) The superintendent never submitted her written decision to the plaintiff;

e) Because the superintendent never issued her written decision to the plaintiff, plaintiff 

was denied her right to appeal the superintendent’s decision to the BOE

f) Defendants retaliated against the plaintiff for voicing her concerns to AP Alvarez by 

issuing the NTR.

58. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, plaintiff developed severe anxiety 

and was granted FMLA leave. Plaintiff eventually was forced to resign her position as a 

tenured teacher thereby causing serious economic loss of salary, insurance coverage and 

pension.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays that this Honorable Court enter judgment against 

the defendants jointly and severally in an amount in excess of $200,000.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Steven Glink

STEVEN E. GLINK

Law Offices of Steven Glink, ARDC # 6180869

Attorney for Dana Smoler

PO Box 1053

Northbrook, Illinois 60062

847/480-7749 (VOICE)

Email: steve@educationrights.com

Case: 1:20-cv-00493 Document #: 23 Filed: 03/26/21 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:237