ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

The court disagreed. All evidence pointed to the fact that after Kirschling’s oral acceptance of
the position, both parties moved forward with making arrangements for Kirschling to assume the
position. The court reasoned that a valid and binding contract did exist.
Next, Kirschling argued that he was deprived of a property interest under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Lake Forest argued that Kirschling had no property interest because employment had not
begun. The court explained that in Stana v. School District of Pittsburgh (3d Cir. 1985), the court
determined that a woman’s removal from a list of eligible teachers violated a property interest.
Clearly, Kirschling possessed a property interest. Therefore, what was required of Lake Forest?
At minimum, Kirschling should have been afforded a hearing to respond to charges that were
never made known to him. The court returned to Stana and cited Cleveland Board of Education
v. Loudermill (1985), where the court set forth that a pre-termination hearing is required, which
Lake Forest did not carry out.
Finally, the court rejected O’Neall and Roberts’ claim that they were entitled to qualified
immunity. It could reasonably be determined that both O’Neall and Roberts knew what was
required of them prior to terminating an employee, and their actions were recklessly taken in
regard to their attempts to dismiss Kirschling.
Disposition: The court denied summary judgment to the defendants and entered judgment
in favor of the plaintiff.
App.).
Citation: Kelly v. Board of Education, 173 Ill. App. 3d 276; 527 N.E.2d 510 (1988 Ill.
Key Facts: William Kelly and Harvey Courtney were both tenured principals in the
Chicago Public School System. In brief, each had attained a pay scale that was based on their
school size ranking. Kelly was Grade IV while Harvey was at Grade V. For Kelly, reassignments
123