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 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?