School District Not Liable for Student Bullying Claims
Two sisters and their parents
sued Consolidated School District 230 alleging breach of contract and tort
claims related to the conduct of the sisters’ basketball teammates. Mulvey v. Carl Sandberg High School et al,
2016 IL App (1st) 151615 (October 28, 2016). The complaint alleged that the
sisters were ignored, harassed, humiliated, physically assaulted, injured and
intimidated by their teammates and that the District failed to take proper
action, including enforcing its anti-bullying policies.
The breach of contract claims concentrated
on the anti-bullying policies the District incorporated into its student
handbook and athletic handbook in response to the Illinois Bullying Prevention
Statute, 105 ILCS 5/27-23.7. The sisters alleged that the handbooks formed a
contract with the District and that the District breached the contract when it
failed to rectify the conditions that resulted in bullying, intimidation, and harassment.
The District argued that, as a matter of law, public
school handbooks cannot form the basis of a contract. The circuit court agreed
and dismissed the claims.
The sisters' tort claim alleged that the District acted with utter indifference and reckless
disregard regarding the bullying conduct. The District moved to dismiss that claim on the basis of discretionary immunity and the
one-year statute of limitations under the Tort Immunity Act. The circuit court
again agreed and found that the District was immune and the claim was time
barred.
On appeal, the appellate court
affirmed the dismissal of all claims. For the contract claims, the appellate
court focused on the elements needed to form a valid contract – offer,
acceptance, and consideration. The court explained that public school student
handbooks cannot form the basis of a contract because the handbook provisions
are not specific enough to constitute an offer and student attendance and the
payment of taxes are not valid consideration. For the willful and wanton
conduct (tort) claim, the appellate court cited two other school bullying cases, Malinski and Hascall, and found that the
implementation of an anti-bullying policy is discretionary and, as a result,
the District was immune under the Tort Immunity Act.
Post Authored by Caitlyn Sharrow, Ancel Glink
Disclosure: Ancel Glink
represented the Defendants in this case.
0 comments:
Post a Comment