Court Opinion

ID: 9838853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-08 14:16:10.113644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:13.030218
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (2d) 220453
                                  No. 2-22-0453
                          Opinion filed September 8, 2023
______________________________________________________________________________

                                              IN THE

                              APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                              SECOND DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

BRYAN WAGNER,                          ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
                                       ) of Lake County.
      Plaintiff-Appellant,             )
                                       )
v.                                     ) No. 22-MR-177
                                       )
THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF NORTH )
SHORE SCHOOL DISTRICT 112 and          )
THE ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF            )
OF EDUCATION,                          ) Honorable
                                       ) Jorge L. Ortiz,
      Defendants-Appellees.            ) Judge, Presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

       JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
       Justices Hutchinson and Jorgensen concurred in the judgment and opinion.

                                            OPINION

¶1     In this administrative review action, the plaintiff, Bryan Wagner, appeals from an order of

the circuit court of Lake County that affirmed the decision of the defendant the Board of Education

(Board) of North Shore School District 112 (District) to terminate Wagner from his employment

as a tenured teacher for the District. We affirm.

¶2                                      I. BACKGROUND

¶3     Wagner was a tenured teacher contractually employed by the District from August 1990

until September 2020. During the 2019-20 school year, he was teaching sixth and seventh grade

social studies at Edgewood Middle School (Edgewood). Wagner’s wife, Kim, was also a teacher
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

for the District, since 1999. During the 2019-20 school year, she taught fourth grade at the Indian

Trail School. Wagner and Kim have been married for 29 years and have two children.

¶4     On June 22, 2020, Wagner was involved in a domestic dispute at his home in Lake Forest

and was arrested. He was charged with domestic battery. A report of the arrest was published in

various local newspapers. On June 23, 2020, a protective order was issued requiring Wagner to

stay away from Kim and their two children. The petition for protective order contained a statement

from Kim that Wagner had been verbally and physically abusive and had shoved her to the ground

on June 22, 2020. In November 2020, the State dropped the criminal charges against Wagner.

¶5     In July 2020, the District became aware of Wagner’s June 2020 arrest when Monica

Schroeder, the District’s deputy superintendent, read an article in a local newspaper that reported

the arrest. After reading the news article, Schroeder, on behalf of the District, investigated the

alleged incident. That investigation included an interview with Wagner. On August 19, 2020,

Wagner was given written notice that he was being placed on administrative leave, without pay,

and that the District was planning to recommend to the Board that he be terminated from his

position. He was advised that the District determined that he was untruthful during his interview

and that he had been intoxicated on the evening of June 22, 2020, and pushed Kim to the ground.

He was given a draft of the bill of particulars and informed that he could attend the meeting before

the Board—where the District would recommend his termination—and defend himself against the

charges.

¶6     On September 14, 2020, a hearing was held before the Board but Wagner did not attend.

The Board adopted a resolution to dismiss Wagner from his teaching position. Attached to the

resolution was a notice of dismissal and a bill of particulars. The notice of dismissal alleged that

Wagner’s conduct in June 2020—namely, shoving his wife to the ground on two occasions with

                                               -2-
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

at least one instance witnessed by their children—was immoral, unprofessional, and in violation

of Board Policy 5:120, involving ethics and conduct. The dismissal notice also alleged that Wagner

was insubordinate during the District’s investigatory interview because his statements to Schroeder

conflicted with what was told to police on the night of the incident and written in the police report.

The notice instructed Wagner that he had the right to challenge the Board’s resolution and request

an administrative hearing before an independent hearing officer, pursuant to section 24-12(d)(1)

of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/24-12(d)(1) (West 2020)).

¶7     The bill of particulars stated that Officer Ramirez, of the Lake Forest Police Department,

was called to Wagner’s home on June 22, 2020, in response to a domestic dispute. On arrival,

Ramirez observed Wagner drinking an unknown alcoholic beverage and noticed the strong odor

of alcohol on Wagner’s breath. Wagner told Ramirez that he had consumed between 6 and 12

beers. Ramirez noticed blood on Wagner’s right palm. Wagner said that he had been spinning his

daughter around and accidentally dropped her on her head. Kim told Ramirez that Wagner was an

alcoholic and had recently relapsed. Kim tried to leave the residence with her children to seek

assistance for the laceration on her daughter’s head, but Wagner blocked her path and shoved her

to the floor twice. Wagner told Ramirez that he prevented Kim from leaving the home but denied

that he had shoved Kim. He stated that Kim fell to floor when she ran into him. Ramirez arrested

Wagner for domestic battery. On June 26, 2020, Kim obtained an emergency order of protection

against Wagner, which was extended once. On October 20, 2020, a plenary order of protection

was issued.

¶8     The bill of particulars further stated that the District investigated after seeing news reports

of Wagner’s arrest. In an interview with the District, Kim stated that Wagner had shoved her to

the ground two times during the incident and had prevented her and their children from leaving

                                                -3-
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

the home. The children had witnessed one of the times Wagner shoved Kim to the ground. During

the District’s interview with Wagner, Wagner denied shoving Kim or preventing her from leaving

the home. He also denied drinking beer or telling the police that he had done so.

¶9     According to the bill of particulars, the District concluded, after its investigation, that

Wagner had been dishonest during his interview. The District determined that Wagner’s

       “immoral, criminal, unprofessional, and insubordinate conduct ha[d] no legitimate basis in

       school policy, [was] detrimental to the best interests of the District, [continued] to interfere

       with [his] ability to teach and with the learning environment, and [had] harmed its students,

       its staff, and the operations and function of the District.”

The Board found that Wagner’s conduct was irremediable and warranted his immediate

termination from his employment.

¶ 10   Wagner requested a dismissal hearing pursuant to section 24-12(d)(1) of the School Code.

Id. A dismissal hearing was held before a hearing officer on September 2 and October 20, 2021.

Schroeder testified that, as the District’s deputy superintendent, she was responsible for

investigating disciplinary issues. She became aware of Wagner’s arrest around mid-July 2020,

when she saw an article in a local community newspaper. The article indicated that it was a

domestic battery situation involving alcohol and pushing someone in his household. She was

concerned because she knew that, if she was reading the article, there were other community

members also reading it, including students, parents, and staff. She realized that the article was

also posted on the Lake Forest Police Department arrest blotter and in the Chicago Tribune. She

then checked the Lake County court public access system and realized there was also an order of

protection. The documents related to the order of protection were admitted into evidence. Further,

Schroeder requested and received a copy of the police report related to the incident.

                                                -4-
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

¶ 11   Schroeder testified that she decided to investigate the alleged conduct that led to Wagner’s

arrest. She had an August 3, 2020, virtual meeting with Wagner. She asked Wagner if he had

pushed his wife or been physical during the June 2020 incident. He denied it. She asked if he was

drinking alcohol that night. He denied it. She asked him why he told the police he had been

drinking. He denied telling the police that he had any alcoholic beverages that night, but he also

stated that it was the last day he had anything to drink. Schroeder opined that Wagner did not

verbalize or display any nonverbal indications that he had any concern regarding the event. In her

experience, most employees she interviewed would show some signs of concern, such as by crying

or their voices quivering. Wagner showed none of that and seemed to have no concern over what

was in the media reports.

¶ 12   Schroeder testified that she had a virtual meeting with Kim a couple days later. Kim told

Schroeder that, in the morning on June 22, 2020, she and Wagner argued over some credit cards.

Later in the evening, Wagner was in the garage, where he often went to drink excessively. Their

daughter went out to the garage to say good night. Their daughter came back into the house a short

time later screaming and bleeding. Kim and Wagner ended up in a different room, where he shoved

her to the ground. The children saw it happen. Kim went downstairs to get her phone and Wagner

pushed her down again. She collected the children and said she was leaving. Wagner stood in the

doorway and would not let her pass. She called 911 but hung up. When 911 called back, “she lost

it.” She told the dispatcher that there were guns in the house. When officers arrived, they took a

statement from her, collected the guns, and arrested Wagner. Kim’s daughter said that Wagner was

spinning her around but lost his balance and she fell and hit her head. Kim did not think that

Wagner would intentionally hurt their daughter. Kim told Schroeder that she had spoken to

multiple colleagues about the incident. Kim’s voluntary written statement that she gave to the

                                               -5-
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

police and signed on the night of the incident was admitted into evidence. It was essentially

identical to what Kim told Schroeder during the interview.

¶ 13   Schroeder further testified that she called the Lake Forest Police Department to make sure

she had received all possible information concerning the June 2020 incident and that the police

report was accurate. Schroeder also spoke with two other District employees—Art Kessler, and

Lisa Hirsh. At the time, they both had children at Edgebrook. At a Board meeting, Hirsh told her

that someone had contacted Hirsh about the media reports involving Wagner. At a follow up

meeting, Hirsh stated that a friend, who was also an Edgewood parent, expressed concern about

Wagner’s arrest and that he would be serving as a teacher at Edgewood. Hirsh stated that she was

also concerned and would not want her own child in Wagner’s classroom. Hirsh’s statements were

allowed only for the purpose of notoriety—to show that there was public awareness of the issue.

¶ 14   Schroeder also spoke with Kessler. Kessler expressed concern because his son, an

Edgewood student, and the son’s friends found the media articles online and were discussing the

domestic battery involving Wagner. Specifically, they were talking about Wagner hitting Kim and

Kim being one of their former teachers. Schroeder further testified that she spoke with Edgewood’s

principal, Anthony Candela, who stated that he was receiving e-mails from parents regarding the

media reports about Wagner. Schroeder testified that she considered the information from Candela,

Hirsh, and Kessler when making her recommendation to terminate Wagner. She believed that the

media reports had impacted the community’s thoughts on Wagner’s employment in the District.

Schroeder testified that she was extremely concerned about the notoriety of Wagner’s arrest and

the harm he had caused as a role model for students in the District.

¶ 15   Schroeder testified that she appeared before the Board on September 14, 2020, to present

her findings and recommendation. Wagner chose not to appear at the Board meeting. In addition

                                               -6-
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

to sharing the information to which she already testified, she also shared copies of Wagner’s

personnel file, which included previous discipline. Schroeder believed that the previous discipline

showed that Wagner had a pattern of unprofessional, insubordinate, and dishonest behavior. The

District’s Exhibit 11 was a June 2006 letter from the District to Wagner. It set forth various

complaints, such as that Wagner asked female students to sit on his lap, discussed the sexual

orientation of another teacher with a group of students, inappropriately commented on female

students’ appearance or clothing, made embarrassing comments about a student or his or her family

in front of the whole class, and exhibited excessive anger during class. After an investigation, the

District concluded that there was “evidence of poor professional judgment, inappropriate humor

and questionable teaching techniques, causing [the District] grave concern.” The District set forth

eight behavioral directives for Wagner to follow, recommended that he request a transfer to a

different school, and urged him to seek the services of the District’s employee assistance program.

The District’s Exhibit 13 was a November 2012 letter to Wagner, which outlined new allegations

of inappropriate behavior with students. The 2012 letter reiterated to Wagner that he was required

to comply with the directives in the June 2006 letter.

¶ 16   Schroeder testified that she did not recommend that Wagner be terminated because he was

arrested. She believed that his conduct was irremediable because, based on the arrest and his

previous behaviors, the damage to his reputation was significant and widely known. She did not

believe that he could return to the classroom. She was aware that there was never a criminal

conviction and the domestic battery charges were dismissed. She nonetheless concluded that

Wagner had engaged in the alleged conduct, based on the police report and the interviews she

conducted. She determined that the police report and Kim’s statements during her interview were

more credible than Wagner’s statements.

                                               -7-
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

¶ 17   Candela testified that he was the principal at Edgewood. He was aware, through

conversations with staff and parents, that there was negative information circulating about Wagner.

Candela had concerns that Wagner’s return to the classroom could cause disruption to the learning

environment. Candela knew that students were talking about what happened, and he was concerned

that it could cause students to feel unsafe. He also knew that fellow staff members had concerns

and would feel very uncomfortable working with Wagner. Candela testified that he would not be

comfortable with Wagner’s return to the classroom.

¶ 18   Kim’s testimony was very similar to what she said during her interview with Schroeder.

However, she added that she had been drinking the evening of the incident and that, when Wagner

came upstairs following their bleeding daughter, Kim grabbed the largest hairbrush she could find

and started hitting Wagner on the head. She told Ramirez that she had hit Wagner with a brush.

Kim acknowledged that the police report did not include a statement that Kim had hit Wagner.

Kim said that was because Ramirez did not seem to think it was important. Kim acknowledged

that Wagner pushed her twice that evening—one time she fell on the bed and another time she fell

on the ground—but Wagner did not “deck” or “slap” her. Kim further testified that she did not

think Wagner had a lot to drink that day, because he had been sleeping most of the day. He did not

have a drink until about 8 p.m. She did not think Wagner was drinking earlier in the day when she

was not home, because he was not normally a day drinker. She opined that Wagner did not let her

leave the house because she had been drinking and he was trying to prevent her from driving away

with their daughter.

¶ 19   Kim testified that there is an automatic three-day order of protection when someone is

arrested for domestic battery. The Department of Children and Family Services told her that she

needed to file for an extension or her kids would be taken away from her. She hired a lawyer to do

                                               -8-
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

that. When she told her lawyer about hitting Wagner with a hairbrush, he advised her to stop talking

about it because, if she told anyone, she risked being arrested. Kim acknowledged that her

testimony at the hearing was the first time she told anyone at the District that she had instigated

the domestic dispute in June 2020. She said that was because she was given legal advice to not tell

anyone. She acknowledged that she never called Schroeder to tell her that she had instigated the

dispute. Kim testified that she may have made a mistake by not calling Schroeder but that she was

“all about self-preservation” for a long time.

¶ 20   Ramirez testified that he was a patrol officer for the Lake Forest Police Department. On

June 22, 2020, just before 10 p.m., he was dispatched to Wagner’s home for a domestic battery

where the caller stated that her husband was intoxicated and had dropped their daughter, who was

bleeding. Upon arrival, Ramirez saw Wagner in the garage, drinking what appeared to be an

alcoholic beverage. Two other officers also arrived. Ramirez asked Wagner why he had blood on

his palm. Wagner said that he was spinning his daughter around and dropped her on her head.

Ramirez noticed a strong odor of alcohol on Wagner’s breath. Ramirez asked Wagner how much

he had to drink, and Wagner stated that he had between 6 and 12 beers. Ramirez believed that

Wagner was intoxicated based on the odor of alcohol on his breath and his slurred speech and

bloodshot glassy eyes.

¶ 21   Ramirez further testified that, while the other officers remained with Wagner in the garage,

he went inside the home. Kim and the children were upstairs in the hallway. He noticed blood on

the walls and on Kim and her daughter. The daughter told him that she was injured when Wagner

dropped her. Kim told him that Wagner was an alcoholic and had recently relapsed. When she saw

her daughter covered in blood, she panicked. She also said that Wagner had blocked her from

leaving the home and that he had shoved her to the ground on the second floor and also on the first

                                                 -9-
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

floor. Kim never stated that she had been physical with Wagner. The only physical contact she

indicated was Wagner blocking her exit when she was trying to get past him. Kim never stated that

she hit Wagner. If Kim had indicated that she was physical with Wagner during the dispute,

Ramirez would have included that in the police report, as it would have changed the situation to

mutual combatants and no arrest would have been made. Kim did not have any indicators of

intoxication—she did not stumble, slur her speech, or have the odor of alcohol on her breath.

¶ 22   After speaking with Kim, Ramirez went back to the garage. He asked Wagner whether he

shoved Kim to the ground. Wagner denied that he had shoved Kim but acknowledged that he had

blocked her from leaving the residence. Ramirez then placed Wagner under arrest for domestic

battery. The police report was admitted into evidence and was similar to Ramirez’s testimony at

the hearing.

¶ 23   On February 22, 2022, the hearing officer issued his findings and recommendation. He

found that Kim’s statements to Ramirez and Schroeder and her voluntary written statement were

more consistent and credible than her testimony at the hearing. He concluded that Wagner had

pushed Kim down twice on the night of the incident. He also concluded that Wagner was dishonest

during his interview with Schroeder when Wagner denied being intoxicated, blocking Kim from

leaving their home, or pushing her to the ground. The hearing officer also concluded that there was

a nexus between Wagner’s off duty conduct in June 2020 and his position as a teacher with the

District. The nexus was that there was significant notoriety surrounding the incident; teachers are

held to a higher standard of conduct, and the public knew not only Wagner but also Kim, as they

were both employees of the District.

¶ 24   Nonetheless, the hearing officer concluded that Wagner’s conduct was not irremediable.

The hearing officer stated that Wagner’s previous discipline was unrelated to the June 2020

                                              - 10 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

altercation and did not create a pattern of misconduct. The hearing officer found that the only basis

for a finding that the conduct was irremediable was the public perception of what occurred. He

concluded that, putting aside public opinion and considering only the location and facts

surrounding the altercation, the conduct was remediable. He determined that Wagner’s dishonesty

with Schroeder warranted severe discipline but that it was not irremediable conduct. The hearing

officer determined that Wagner should be reinstated, but he awarded back pay only from the start

of the 2021-22 school year. Further, he concluded that any repetition of the events of June 2020

would be grounds for immediate dismissal.

¶ 25   On March 15, 2022, the Board issued a formal resolution dismissing Wagner. The Board

adopted the hearing officer’s findings of fact. However, in accord with authority granted by the

School Code (id. § 24-12(d)(8)), it also modified and supplemented the findings of fact and the

ultimate conclusion rendered by the hearing officer that it determined were against the manifest

weight of the evidence.

¶ 26   Specifically, the Board supplemented some of the hearing officer’s summary of the

evidence. The Board stated that the publication in several news sources of the June 2020 incident

eroded the community’s trust in Wagner’s ability to control himself around students in the

classroom. The Board also clarified that Kim had ample opportunity to update her version of the

events with the District but never did so. Kim gave no indication that she was an instigator of the

incident in an e-mail sent to Schroeder requesting that Schroeder reconsider recommending

Wagner’s dismissal, and Kim did not attend the September 2020 Board hearing recommending

Wagner’s dismissal. In addition, Wagner did not attend the September 2020 Board meeting or

otherwise attempt to update the circumstances surrounding the incident.

                                               - 11 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

¶ 27   The Board concluded that some of the hearing officer’s conclusions were against the

manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, the Board held that Wagner’s prior discipline was

related to the conduct underlying his dismissal and established a pattern of unprofessional conduct.

In 2006, an investigation into complaints about his behavior in the classroom resulted in the Board

issuing directives for Wagner to maintain respectful relationships with staff members, refrain from

making comments to students regarding their clothes or physical appearance, and refrain from

discussing personal issues and yelling excessively in the classroom. In 2012, Wagner was issued

a reprimand for commenting on a student’s attire and touching her shoulder. In 2020, Wagner was

issued another written reprimand for making inappropriate and unprofessional comments to

students.

¶ 28   The Board found that the hearing officer’s conclusion that Wagner’s dishonesty was

remediable was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Board stated that the hearing

officer underestimated the impact of Wagner’s dishonesty on the District. The Board noted that

honesty was a basic expectation of Wagner’s employment and was not something that employees

must be warned to maintain. Wagner willfully misled the Board, and his conduct showed an

indifference to the moral standards expected of teachers. Further, Wagner’s failure to inform the

Board of Kim’s alleged participation in the June 2020 physical altercation was a lie by omission

or, alternatively, he allowed Kim to perjure herself at the dismissal hearing. Either way, Wagner

could no longer be trusted to act with integrity or honesty.

¶ 29   The Board also determined that the hearing officer’s finding that, “absent public opinion,

Mr. Wagner’s conduct would be remediable” was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The

Board noted that the evidence supported the public perception that Wagner could no longer serve

as a role model to students. Further, his inability to control his anger and physical violence toward

                                               - 12 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

his wife in front of his children was immoral, unethical, and criminal, and his dishonesty during

the investigation was unethical, unprofessional, and insubordinate. The Board concluded that

Wagner’s conduct violated Board policy 5:120 and was irremediable grounds for his dismissal,

regardless of notoriety.

¶ 30   Finally, the Board concluded that a warning could not undo the damage that Wagner caused

to his reputation with students, parents, staff, and the administration. The Board noted Wagner’s

lack of emotion or concern regarding his conduct, the circulation of the information in the general

community, or its effect on the District. The Board specifically noted that Wagner never expressed

a desire to repair his reputation in the District community. The Board determined that there was

no basis to find that the damage to Wagner’s reputation could be remedied with a warning,

concluded that his conduct was irremediable, and terminated his employment.

¶ 31   Thereafter, Wagner filed a complaint for administrative review of the Board’s decision in

the circuit court of Lake County, pursuant to section 24-16 of the School Code (id. § 24-16) and

the Administrative Review Law (Review Law) (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2020)). On

December 13, 2022, following a hearing, the trial court affirmed the Board’s decision to terminate

Wagner’s employment. Wagner filed a timely notice of appeal.

¶ 32                                     II. ANALYSIS

¶ 33   On appeal, Wagner argues that the Board failed to prove irremediable cause for dismissal.

He argues that the Board’s factual findings that his June 2020 conduct was criminal, immoral, and

unprofessional, and that he was dishonest during his interview with Schroeder, were against the

manifest weight of the evidence. He also argues that the Board failed to prove harm to students,

faculty, or staff and failed to prove that his conduct could not be remedied by a warning.

Additionally, Wagner argues that the Board is precluded from establishing irremediable cause for

                                              - 13 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

dismissal, because of its own unlawful conduct in firing him based on his arrest record, in violation

of section 2-103(A) the Illinois Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5/2-103(A) (West 2020)). Finally,

Wagner argues that the hearing officer erred in recommending a less than make-whole remedy

upon his reinstatement.

¶ 34    Section 24-16 of the School Code specifically adopts the Review Law for judicial review

of the Board’s final administrative decisions issued under section 24-12 of the School Code. 105

ILCS 5/24-16 (West 2020). In administrative cases, we review the decision of the administrative

agency and not the ruling of the trial court. Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police Pension Board,

225 Ill. 2d 497, 531 (2006). In the present case, the administrative agency is the Board. Generally,

we review the Board’s decision, not that of the hearing officer, which is merely a recommendation

to the Board. Raitzik v. Board of Education of Chicago, 356 Ill. App. 3d 813, 823 (2005); see

Beggs v. Board of Education of Murphysboro Community Unit School District No. 186, 2016 IL

120236, ¶¶ 57, 61 (“the decision of the school board is the final decision for purposes of

administrative review,” even where witness credibility drove the findings and the hearing officer,

rather than the board, observed the witnesses). The Board is the judge of the credibility of the

witnesses. Polk v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, 253 Ill. App. 3d 525, 536 (1993).

¶ 35    Our review of the Board’s decision to dismiss an employee requires a two-step approach.

Beggs, 2016 IL 120236, ¶ 63. First, we must determine whether the Board’s factual determinations

were against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. A factual determination is against the

manifest weight of the evidence when the opposite conclusion is clearly evident. Id. ¶ 50. Second,

we must determine whether the factual findings provided a sufficient basis for the Board’s

conclusion that cause existed for discharge or dismissal. Id. ¶ 63. “A school board’s determination

of cause to discharge is not prima facie true and correct; it is instead subject to reversal where it is

                                                 - 14 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

arbitrary, unreasonable, or unrelated to the requirements of service.” Id. The “clearly erroneous”

standard of review applies to this mixed question of law and fact. Id. A decision is clearly

erroneous “where the reviewing court, on the entire record, is ‘left with the definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of

Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380, 395 (2001) (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum

Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).

¶ 36                              A. Board’s Factual Findings

¶ 37   Wagner argues that the Board’s factual findings—that he engaged in criminal, immoral,

and unprofessional conduct and that he was dishonest during his interview with Schroeder—were

against the manifest weight of the evidence. He asserts that he was denied a fair hearing because

the Board improperly credited unreliable hearsay testimony over Kim’s live testimony at the

dismissal hearing. We disagree.

¶ 38   The Board’s factual determinations were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The Board found Ramirez’s testimony at the dismissal hearing more credible than Kim’s

testimony. Ramirez testified that, when he responded to the scene of the June 2020 incident, Kim

told him that Wagner was intoxicated and had knocked her down twice. Wagner told Ramirez that

he had consumed between 6 and 12 beers. Ramirez denied that Kim made any statements about

hitting Wagner with a hairbrush and testified that, if she had done so, it would have changed the

investigation. Ramirez’s testimony regarding the statements made on the night of the incident were

consistent with his police report, Kim’s voluntary written statement, and Kim’s statements to

Schroeder during the investigatory interview. As there was evidence supporting the conclusion

that on June 22, 2020, Wagner engaged in the conduct alleged, a conclusion opposite to that of the

Board is not clearly apparent.

                                              - 15 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

¶ 39   Wagner argues that the Board’s determination is erroneous because it was based entirely

on hearsay. He asserts that the police report, news articles about Wagner’s arrest, documents

related to the order of protection, and testimony of Ramirez and Schroeder were all hearsay and,

therefore, any reliance on the foregoing was improper. This argument is without merit. We

acknowledge that generally, as a matter of procedural due process, hearsay evidence is not

admissible in an administrative proceeding. Kimble v. Illinois State Board of Education, 2014 IL

App (1st) 123436, ¶ 79. However, “the strict rules of evidence that apply in a judicial proceeding

are not applicable to proceedings before an administrative agency.” Id. In fact, “ ‘where there is

sufficient competent evidence to support an administrative decision, the improper admission of

hearsay testimony in the administrative proceeding is not prejudicial error.’ ” Abrahamson v.

Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76, 94 (1992) (quoting Goranson v.

Department of Registration & Education, 92 Ill. App. 3d 496, 501 (1980)).

¶ 40   In the present case, the admission of the documents related to the order of protection was

not improper, as they were certified copies of public records. See Ill. R. Evid. 902(4) (eff. Sep. 28,

2018). Wagner’s argument that Ramirez’s testimony was improper is without merit because

Ramirez was testifying about his official investigation of the incident at Wagner’s home. People

v. Evans, 2018 IL App (4th) 160686, ¶ 38 (“hearsay testimony may be introduced when a police

officer offers testimony regarding his or her official investigation of an offense”). Wagner argues

that Schroeder’s testimony was hearsay because it was based entirely on what she read in the news

reports of Wagner’s arrest and the police report. However, the record shows that Schroeder’s

conclusions were based on the results of her investigation and her interviews with Kim and others,

and not entirely on the police report or the news reports.

                                                - 16 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

¶ 41   The only potential improper hearsay was the police report and the news articles of

Wagner’s arrest. The record indicates that the hearing officer initially admitted the police report

and news articles for the purpose of establishing the reason the District began its investigation of

Wagner, not for the truth of the matter asserted. However, even if the police report and the news

articles were admitted for the truth of the statements, there was no prejudicial error because the

statements were corroborated by Ramirez’s testimony and Kim’s statements during her interview

with Schroeder, her written statement on the night of the incident, and her written statement in her

verified petition for order of protection. See Abrahamson, 153 Ill. 2d at 94.

¶ 42   Wagner argues that Kim’s testimony at the dismissal hearing was the most credible because

she was the only one who testified with firsthand knowledge of the events at issue. However, Kim

did not deny that Wagner pushed her down twice and prevented her from leaving the home. At the

dismissal hearing, she added only that she had been drinking and had instigated Wagner’s response

by repeatedly hitting him with a hairbrush. The Board is responsible for making factual findings.

The Board determined that Kim’s version of events set forth in her written statement on the night

of the incident, in the verified order of protection, and in her interview with Schroeder, were more

credible than her live testimony at the hearing. We cannot say that this determination was against

the manifest weight of the evidence. It is not the duty of this reviewing court to reweigh evidence

or determine the witnesses’ credibility. East St. Louis School District No. 189 v. Hayes, 237 Ill.

App. 3d 638, 646 (1992). Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, a rational trier of fact

could agree with the Board’s determination. We therefore find that it is not contrary to the manifest

weight of the evidence.

¶ 43   Finally, we note that Wagner argues only that he did not commit the alleged conduct. He

does not attempt to argue that, even if he did commit the alleged conduct, it was not sufficient

                                               - 17 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

cause for dismissal. In his reply brief, he raises the argument that the alleged conduct was not

“criminal” because the domestic battery charges did not result in a criminal conviction. However,

the word “criminal” in the bill of particulars is used to modify the term “conduct.” Black’s Law

Dictionary defines “criminal” in its adjective form as, “1. Of, relating to, or involving a crime; in

the nature of a crime <criminal mischief> *** 3. Wrong, dishonest, and unacceptable.” Black’s

Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). As such, the word “criminal” encompasses more than a criminal

conviction. Moreover, while Wagner was not ultimately convicted of domestic battery, there was

still cause for dismissal. Cause for dismissal has been defined as “ ‘that which law and public

policy deem as some substantial shortcoming which renders a teacher’s continued employment

detrimental to discipline and effectiveness.’ ” Pacernick v. Board of Education of the Waukegan

Community Unit School District No. 60, 2020 IL App (2d) 190959, ¶ 108 (quoting Raitzik, 356 Ill.

App. 3d at 831). A school board has the power “[t]o dismiss a teacher for incompetency, cruelty,

negligence, immorality or other sufficient cause *** whenever, in its opinion, the interests of the

schools require it.” 105 ILCS 5/10-22.4 (West 2020). We hold that the Board’s determination that

Wagner’s conduct established sufficient cause for dismissal was not erroneous.

¶ 44                                B. Irremediability Finding

¶ 45   Next, Wagner argues that the Board erred in determining that his conduct was irremediable.

Under section 10-22.4 of the School Code, a tenured teacher may be removed from employment

only for remediable cause or irremediable cause. Id. “Remediable” cause is defined as conduct by

a teacher that could ordinarily be remedied if it was called to his or her attention. Ahmad v. Board

of Education of Chicago, 365 Ill. App. 3d 155, 163 (2006). Before a school district can terminate

a tenured teacher who engages in “remediable” conduct, the district must provide a written “Notice

                                               - 18 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

to Remedy” of those “causes that, if not removed, may result in charges.” 105 ILCS 5/24-12 (West

2020).

¶ 46     “Irremediable conduct” is defined as conduct that causes damage to the students, the

faculty, or the school itself that could not have been corrected if warnings had been given by the

teacher’s supervisors. Ahmad, 365 Ill. App. 3d at 163. In Gilliland v. Board of Education of

Pleasant View Consolidated School District No. 622, 67 Ill. 2d 143 (1977), our supreme court set

forth a two-part analysis pertinent to determining whether conduct is irremediable: (1) whether the

teacher’s conduct caused significant damage to students, faculty, or the school and (2) whether the

teacher would not have corrected his or her conduct, even if he or she had been issued a written

warning and a period of time for remediation. Id. at 153. In cases involving conduct that is immoral

or criminal, “the second prong is altered to assess whether the effects of the conduct could have

been corrected.” (Emphasis in original.) Pacernick, 2020 IL App (2d) 190959, ¶ 133. Whether

conduct is irremediable is a question of fact, which we review under the manifest weight of the

evidence standard. Younge v. Board of Education of Chicago, 338 Ill. App. 3d 522, 531 (2003). If

a teacher’s conduct is deemed irremediable, no written warning is required before initiating a

dismissal action. Pacernick, 2020 IL App (2d) 190959, ¶ 122. In this case, no written warning was

given prior to Wagner’s termination and the Board concluded that his conduct was irremediable.

¶ 47                                       1. First Prong

¶ 48     Wagner first argues that the District failed to prove any harm to students, faculty, or the

school. Wagner’s assertion is based on the premise that the testimony presented at the dismissal

hearing was hearsay and thus could not be a proper basis for establishing any harm. Wagner argues

that his conduct could not have caused any harm because the District failed to establish that he

actually engaged in the conduct alleged in the police report or that anyone in the community had

                                               - 19 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

firsthand knowledge of his actual conduct on the night of the incident. As explained above, this

assertion is without merit. Based on the evidence presented, the Board’s determination that Wagner

actually engaged in the alleged conduct was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 49   Moreover, we find no error in the Board’s determination that the alleged conduct harmed

students, faculty, and the school. Wagner’s dishonesty with Schroeder during the investigatory

interview clearly damaged his relationship with the District’s administrators and his fellow faculty

members, and their ability to trust that he would behave professionally and honestly. Wagner’s

conduct, which was well publicized, properly caused community concern about his ability to return

to the classroom. “[T]eachers occupy a special position of trust in our society. As leaders and role

models, it is the teacher’s responsibility to instill basic societal values and qualities of good

citizenship in the students.” Board of Education of Argo-Summit School District No. 104 v. State

Board of Education, 138 Ill. App. 3d 947, 952 (1985). Schroeder testified that she was concerned

that Wagner’s reputation had been damaged to the point that he could no longer serve as a role

model for students. Candela testified that he was concerned that the circulation of negative

information would make students feel unsafe and impact the learning environment. Wagner’s

conduct was clearly harmful to the reputation of the faculty and the school and harmful to his

ability to model positive values for students. These are appropriate considerations when

determining whether the first prong of Gilliland is satisfied. See Fadler v. State Board of

Education, 153 Ill. App. 3d 1024, 1028 (1987).

¶ 50                                     2. Second Prong

¶ 51   Wagner next argues that the District failed to prove that his alleged conduct could not be

remedied with a prior warning. Wagner argues that there was no evidence that such conduct would

                                               - 20 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

recur, that his dishonesty would not be remedied with a warning, or that his completely unrelated

prior discipline established a pattern of misconduct.

¶ 52   We cannot say that the Board’s irremediability finding was against the manifest weight of

the evidence. Schroeder testified that, during her investigatory interview with Wagner, he was

dishonest and failed to express any emotion or remorse. We agree with the Board that honesty is

a basic expectation in an employment relationship. In light of Wagner’s dishonesty and failure to

take responsibility for his actions, there was no error in determining that Wagner’s conduct would

not have changed had he been given a warning. Even applying the alternative formulation for the

second prong set forth in Gilliland, our decision would be the same. A warning could not have

corrected the effects that the conduct had on the school, faculty, and students. Wagner’s conduct

damaged his own reputation and the reputation of the school district and a warning could not undo

or correct that damage. Courts have repeatedly “affirmed the dismissal of a tenured teacher who

has engaged in unethical conduct, although the offending conduct did not involve students and did

not occur on the school premises.” Ahmad, 365 Ill. App. 3d at 166 (citing, in part, McCullough v.

Illinois State Board of Education, 204 Ill. App. 3d 1082, 1090 (1990) (affirming the dismissal of

a teacher with a criminal tax conviction because the teacher could no longer function as a role

model)); Chicago Board of Education v. Payne, 102 Ill. App. 3d 741, 748 (1981) (affirming the

dismissal of teacher who pled guilty to possessing marijuana, because involvement in illegal

activities would have a major deleterious effect upon the school system).

¶ 53   Wagner argues that the Board erred in considering his prior discipline, because it was not

mentioned in the bill of particulars. However, as noted, the Board is allowed to receive all oral and

written evidence without strict adherence to the legal rules of evidence. Kimble, 2014 IL App (1st)

123436, ¶ 79 (the strict rules of evidence are not applicable to proceedings before an administrative

                                               - 21 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

agency). Schroeder testified that she presented Wagner’s prior discipline to the Board at the

September 2020 hearing. Wagner chose not to attend that hearing and thus did not object to that

evidence. Wagner argues that the hearing officer found evidence of the prior discipline to be

improper, but this is a misrepresentation of the record. The hearing officer allowed Schroeder to

testify about Wagner’s prior discipline and admitted the related evidence. The hearing officer

concluded only that the prior discipline did not establish a pattern of misconduct because the

conduct related to the prior disciplinary actions was not similar to the June 2020 conduct. On

appeal, the Board argues only that Wagner’s prior discipline supports its decision that Wagner’s

June 2020 conduct was irremediable. We agree that the prior discipline supports the Board’s

determination. The prior discipline demonstrated a pattern of unprofessional behavior that

diminished Wagner’s ability to be a role model for students. Wagner’s off-duty conduct at issue

in this case added to the pattern of unprofessional conduct. However, even absent any prior

discipline or an established pattern of misconduct, we would affirm the Board’s decision.

¶ 54   Finally, Wagner argues that the District is precluded from establishing irremediable cause

for dismissal under section 24-12(d) of the School Code by virtue of its own unlawful conduct in

violating Wagner’s civil rights. Specifically, Wagner argues that, under section 2-103(A) of the

Human Rights Act (775 ILCS 5/2-103(A) (West 2020)), the District is precluded from terminating

his employment on the basis of an arrest record. We decline to address this argument. First, it is

forfeited because Wagner has failed to cite any authority that a violation of section 2-103(A) of

the Human Rights Act precludes as a matter of law a finding of irremediable cause to dismiss. Hall

v. Naper Gold Hospitality LLC, 2012 IL App (2d) 111151, ¶ 12 (contentions without citation to

authority do not merit consideration on appeal). Moreover, Wagner’s argument turns on whether

the Board violated section 2-103(A) of the Human Rights Act, and we can take judicial notice that

                                              - 22 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

this issue is currently being litigated in a separate case. See Wagner v. Board of Education of North

Shore School District 112, 2023 IL App (2d) 220277. Wagner did not move to consolidate that

case with the present case.

¶ 55   As we affirm the Board’s decision to terminate Wagner’s employment, we need not address

Wagner’s argument that the hearing officer erred in recommending a less than make-whole

remedy.

¶ 56                                    III. CONCLUSION

¶ 57   For the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County, which upheld the

Board’s decision, is affirmed.

¶ 58   Affirmed.

                                               - 23 -
2023 IL App (2d) 220453

              Wagner v. Board of Education of North Shore School District 112,
                                 2023 IL App (2d) 220453

 Decision Under Review:        Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County, No. 22-MR-177;
                               the Hon. Jorge L. Ortiz, Judge, presiding.

 Attorneys                     Joshua M. File, of Katz, Friedman, Eisenstein, Johnson, Bareck
 for                           & Bertuca, P.C., of Chicago, for appellant.
 Appellant:

 Attorneys                     Emily Tulloch, of Franczek P.C., of Chicago, for appellee Board
 for                           of Education of North Shore School District 112.
 Appellee:
                               No brief filed for other appellee.

                                            - 24 -