Court Opinion

ID: 9710341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:07:39.110304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:56.033691
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE UNDERWOOD, dissenting: In my judgment our opinion in Gilliland v. Board of Education (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 143, is dispositive of this case and requires affirmance of the judgments of the trial and appellate courts, which upheld the action of the board of education in discharging plaintiff. However, if the reasons for his discharge were remediable and failure to give plaintiff prior notice thereof invalidates his discharge, as my colleagues now hold, I do not understand why it is necessary for them to discuss the other issues which are so extensively treated. The board of education found the conduct of plaintiff resulting in his discharge was not remediable. The trial and appellate courts held that finding was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and I agree. My colleagues acknowledge “The charges are serious and there is evidence to support the charges” (75 Ill. 2d at 332), but then proceed to hold the failure to warn him denied plaintiff “the opportunity to confront and correct an apparently serious situation” (75 Ill. 2d at 332). In view of the testimony that the principal had, during the 1973-74 school year, written plaintiff six letters or memoranda regarding that situation without noticeable improvement, the finding by my colleagues that the causes for discharge were remediable seems to me completely unrealistic. It will be quite difficult for school boards to discharge their responsibilities to provide effective educational environments if their findings are to be treated as cavalierly as my coHeagues have treated these. I would affirm the judgments of the trial and appellate courts.