Board of Education of Plainfield Community Consolidated School District 202 v. Illinois State Board Of Education et al

Filing 69

Memorandum Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 3/26/2014:Mailed notice(wp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
PLAINFIELD COMMUNITY
CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL
DISTRICT 202,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

Case No. 13 C 2043

v.

Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber

ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION, and ARIANA W. and
AMANI W., by and through their
Parent and Next Friend, ANGELA
W.,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The
District

Plaintiff,
202

(the

Plainfield
“Plaintiff

Community
School

Consolidated

District”)

is

School

organized

pursuant to the Illinois School Code, 105 ILCS 5/1-1, et seq.

The

Illinois State Board of Education (the “ISBE”) is the state agency
that establishes the procedure for resolving disputes between
students, their parents, and local school districts under the
Individuals

With

Disabilities

Education

“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq.

Improvement

Act

(the

Angela W. is the parent of

Ariana W. And Amani W., 13-year-old twins who are identified as
being eligible for special education services who reside within the
Plaintiff School District.

The IDEA was enacted to ensure that

children with disabilities are provided with free appropriate

public education in the least restrictive environment.
contains

procedural

safeguards

and

Section

The Act

1415(e)(2)(F)(iii)

provides parents and school districts the opportunity to resolve
disputes through mediation agreements that are enforceable in state
or federal court.
I.

BACKGROUND

During the 2011-2012 school year, Ariana and Amani were fifth
grade students at Elim Christian School (“Elim”), a private day
school serving students with disabilities.

On May 17, 2012 the

District convened a meeting for Ariana and Amani which resulted in
an Individual Educational Placement (“IEP”) at another school, John
F. Kennedy Middle School (“JFK”), beginning in the fall of the
2012-2013 school year.

Angela W. expressed concerns about the

ability of the proposed placement to meet the children’s needs and
filed a request for a due process hearing in which she requested
continued placement at Elim.
On July 24, 2012, a mediation session was held before a
mediator appointed by the ISBE.

Angela W., with an advocate on her

behalf, and three school district representatives attended the
mediation session.

A Mediation Agreement (the “Agreement”) was

reached which was reduced to writing.

The terms of the Agreement

included the placement of the twins at JFK beginning January 7,
2013, and provided for transition steps to facilitate the change
from Elim where they would continue to attend during the fall

- 2 -

semester of 2012.

The Agreement further required Angela W. to

withdraw her request for the due process hearing which she did.
The Agreement contained numerous provisions to make sure the
transition between Elim and JFK occurred smoothly.

The District

and Angela agreed as follows:
1.

Parties agree that Ariana will be placed in
the same classroom with Amani at JFK beginning
January 7, 2013.

2.

School District agrees to provide an aide to
support Ariana (2:1) during second semester of
the 2012-13 school year.

3.

Parties agree that Ariana shall visit JFK a
number of times during the first semester at
mutually agreed upon times.

4.

School District agrees to provide a staff
member to visit Ariana at Elim a number of
times during the first semester.

5.

The parties agree to work
facilitate the transition.

6.

School District agrees to develop social
stories in partnership with Elim to facilitate
the transition.

7.

School District agrees to provide a full reevaluation after an agreed upon domain
meeting.

8.

School District agrees to contact the parent
prior to initiating any major changes and
agrees to consult with parent beginning
January 7, 2013.

9.

School District agrees
technology evaluation.

10.

The parties will develop a plan for parent to
visit and observe the JFK classroom during

- 3 -

to

do

with

an

Elim

to

assistive

second semester, which plan will be developed
prior to the start date.
11.

Parties agree to meet with Elim during first
semester of 2012-13 to discuss:
-

Level of support of TA necessary for
academic progress at JFK;
Adapted equipment; and
Communication between parent and school.

12.

Parent agrees to share information regarding
Ariana’s skin condition with teachers and
staff.

13.

During second semester of the 2012-13 school
year, parties agree to meet with each other at
a monthly team meeting at which reports will
be submitted in lieu of attendance for those
who are unable to attend.

14.

The parties agree to meet after the completion
of the full evaluation to develop an updated
IEP.
The parties project that this meeting
shall take place in December 2012 and shall
involve both Elim and District Staff.

15.

The parent agrees to withdraw her due process
request.

Generally it can be said that Angela W. was not particularly
cooperative

in

carrying

out

the

Agreement.

Soon

after

the

Agreement was signed, Angela W. attempted to revoke it by e-mailing
statements

to

disagreements.

the

mediator

alleging

duress

and

her

many

She now, in these proceedings, alleges that the

School District did not perform all of the actions and activities
that it agreed to do at the mediation.

The School District, in

turn, contends that it either did all that it was required to under

- 4 -

the Agreement or was prevented from doing so by failure on the part
of Angela W. to cooperate.
The School District in its Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts set forth what it did in attempted compliance with
each of the enumerated paragraphs of the Agreement.
Angela W., in her response, instead of admitting or denying a
specific fact allegation as required by the Local Rules, provides
prolix

statements

containing

argument,

additional

factual

allegations, and references to her Answer to the Complaint where
she “neither admits or denies” certain allegations.

Her responses

violate Rule 56 in many ways: additional facts are not appropriate
and should be disregarded, Ciomber v. Cooperative Plus, Inc., 527
F.3d 635, 634-4 (7th Cir. 2008); inclusion of legal arguments is
not appropriate, Bordelon v. Chicago School Reform Bd. of Trustees,
233 F.3d 524, 527 (7th Cir. 2000); neither admitting or denying
does not constitute a denial, Ciomber, 527 F.3d at 644.

The

purpose of Rule 56 is to aid the Court in determining whether there
are any material facts that are legitimately in dispute.

Angela

W.’s response not only does not assist the Court, but instead makes
the Court’s task measurably more difficult which justifies the
Court’s ignoring the improper responses.

Accordingly, the Court

accepts as not in dispute the action the School District has set
forth in its 56.1 Statement in Paragraphs 19. a.-h.

- 5 -

On December 11, 2012, Angela W. refiled her due process
request, alleging that she had been coerced into signing the
Agreement under duress.

To date, Angela W. has refused to enroll

the twins at JFK and has kept them enrolled at Elim.
II.
A.

DISCUSSION

Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II

As a result, the School District has filed this lawsuit which
seeks summary judgement on Count II of its Complaint which seeks to
enforce

the

Mediation

Agreement.

Angela

W.

makes

numerous

arguments on why the Court should deny summary judgement enforcing
the Agreement.
Her first argument is that the Agreement lacked consideration.
However, the latest IEP issued in the Spring of 2012, removed the
twins from Elim and placed them at JFK.

Angela W. objected to this

and filed a request for a due process hearing.

The parties agreed

to mediation instead and entered into a compromise whereby the
twins would remain at Elim for the Fall Semester of 2012 and then
be enrolled at JFK for the Spring Semester of 2013.
certainly consideration.

This is

Angela W. seems to think that the twins

were entitled to remain at Elim and thus leaving them there for the
first semester could not be consideration.

Consideration is

anything of value that a promissor receives from the promise in
return for its promise.

Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 81

(1979).

- 6 -

For her second argument she denies that she assented to the
Mediation Agreement.

However, the record shows that she signed

them on behalf of the twins.

Signing demonstrates assent.

Lynge

v. Kunstmann, 94 Ill.App.3d 689, 694 (1981).
Her third argument is that the Agreement is unenforceable
because there is no release clause.
understand this argument.

Frankly, the Court does not

Release from what?

Her fourth argument is that she signed the Agreement under
duress.

The only evidence she supplies in support is that she was

reduced

to

tears

during

the

negotiation.

To

invalidate

an

agreement on the basis of duress, a party must show that he was
induced by a wrongful act or threat of another to execute an
agreement under circumstances which deprived her of the exercise of
free will.

Kaplan v. Keith, 60 Ill.App.3d 804 (1st Dist. 1978).

There is no such allegation here.
Her fifth argument is that the Agreement is voidable due to
“mutual mistake.”
social

stories

The alleged mutual mistake is the fact that

would

be

an

transition to a new school.

effective

way

to

facilitate

the

The fact of the matter is that a

“social story” was, in fact, obtained but was not given because
there was disagreement as to whether it would be effective. Angela
never did allow the children to be transferred so we cannot know
what problems there would have been, if any, in transition.

In

addition, a mutual mistake must be as to a material fact and must

- 7 -

be of a fact where the parties say one thing and mean another, and
it must be of a fact past or present and not of the future.
Cameron v. Bogusz, 305 Ill.App.3d 267, 271 (1st Dist. 1999).
there is no such allegation of a past or present fact.

Here

Basically

what Angela W. is arguing is that there is disagreement as to the
effectiveness of one of the provisions of the Agreement.

There is

no indication that the School District intended to guarantee a
successful transition.
The sixth argument is that Angela W. rescinded the Agreement.
There is evidence that she very quickly after signing the Agreement
sought to renege.

However, a contract can only be rescinded by

agreement of the parties.
899 (1st dist. 1992).

Kirchoff v. Rosen, 227 Ill.App.3d 870,

Here there is no such agreement between the

parties.
The seventh argument is that the School District breached the
Agreement.

However, the Court has previously shown that, based on

the Rule 56. 1 Statements Angela W. has not been able to counter
the Statement of Fact as set forth by the School District in
Paragraph 19 concerning its performance. Suffice to say that there
are no material breaches established by the record in this case.
The eighth argument is that the School District breached its
contract

with

beneficiaries.

Elim

to

which

the

twins

were

third

party

The Court does not see where there are any facts in

- 8 -

the record that would establish a breach of any agreement with
Elim.
The ninth argument is that the Agreement was illegal.

There

is nothing illegal where a school district and a parent enter into
agreement as to the student’s placement.
earlier

in

this

opinion,

the

statute

In fact, as indicated
specifically

authorizes

mediation agreements and makes them enforceable in state or federal
court.

20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2)(F)(iii).

The tenth and last argument is that the Agreement is void for
vagueness.

However, there are no allegations that any of the

provisions are ambiguous.

The thrust of the Agreement is that the

School District, who felt that the twins could be adequately taught
in a district school rather than pay a large amount of money
educating them in a private school, reached a compromise with the
parent by providing that the children could stay one more semester
beyond what the School District thought was necessary at the
private school and then transfer to a district school earlier than
the parent thought was appropriate.
compromise.

This is indicative of a

The mediation was entered into on the eve of the due

process hearing where both sides presumably would be uncertain how
the

hearing

compromise.

officer

would

rule

so

each

had

an

incentive

to

This is authorized by the both federal and state

statutes and is encouraged.

- 9 -

B.

Motions to Strike

Both parties have moved to strike portions of each other’s
Motions.

The Court has taken into account the various motions

which are generally unnecessary as the parties are free to comment
on the adequacy or legality of each other’s statements.

The Court

has taken into account the various arguments raised in the Motions,
so each is denied as moot.
III.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the School District’s Motion
for

Partial

Summary

Judgement

on

Count

II

is

granted.

The

Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the same Count
is denied.

The Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is denied as moot.

The Defendants’ Motion to Strike is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
Date:3/26/2014

- 10 -