CHICAGO — A federal appeals panel has determined school districts and other employers may not be able to quickly fire workers covered by union contracts, as those workers may have a protected property interest in their employment, if their contract includes a provision compelling an employer to identify “reasonable cause” when terminating them.
The root issue is the termination of Joshua Cheli, who worked in information technology for Community School District 3 in downstate Taylorville from 2014 through 2018. According to court documents, Taylorville Superintendent Gregg Fuerstenau and Computer Services Director Chris Kuntzman fired Cheli on Sept. 28, 2018, based on allegations he sexually harassed a student three weeks earlier.
Court records show Cheli learned of the meeting at which he was fired 25 minutes in advance, and the school board formalized the termination with a retroactive resolution adopted Oct. 9, 2018. He challenged the firing in federal court, arguing the district didn’t follow termination policies established in its contract with Taylorville’s Educational Support Personnel.
John A. Baker
| Baker Baker + Krajewski
U.S. District Judge Sue Myerscough, of the Central District of Illinois, granted the district’s motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that, despite allegations Cheli was deprived of adequate hearings — before he was fired and surrounding the board adopting its resolution — he didn’t sufficiently offer evidence he “had a constitutionally protected property interest in his continued employment.”
Cheli took his case to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a decision Feb. 3. Judge Joel Flaum wrote the opinion; Judges Diane Sykes and Michael Kanne concurred.
According to the panel, Illinois law establishes a person’s property interest in their job only if there is a contract, ordinance or law limiting an employer’s ability to end the employment. Further, Flaum wrote, “a collective bargaining agreement with such a provision could create a property interest for due process purposes.”
With the presence of Cheli’s union agreement, the panel reasoned, the appeal boils down to whether the district could only fire him “for cause.” Cheli said the contract language limits the district to termination “only” for reasonable cause, while the district asserted it isn’t required to find reasonable cause. The panel sided with Cheli.
“On the condition of a finding of reasonable cause, defendants have discretion whether to take disciplinary action,”Flaum wrote. “Inversely, they cannot terminate employees without satisfying that reasonable-cause condition.”
Although one agreement clause supported Cheli’s position, the panel said, the remainder “reinforces our view that this provision constrains defendants’ otherwise wide latitude” by stipulating what type of conduct might establish reasonable grounds for discipline or dismissal.
The panel also looked at other sections of the CBA, such as definitions of a 120-day probationary period for new employees who are legally “at-will” workers and can be dismissed at the district’s discretion.
“If new employees are specifically classified as ‘at-will’ employees here,” Flaum wrote, “then by implication employees serving more than 120 days are not.”
Ultimately, the panel said, Cheli’s union’s CBA “contains specific provisions providing for disciplinary proceedings and requiring the defendants to provide a ‘written explanation’ for their decisions.” It also stipulates what the district must do for workers it disciplines or fires, including a meeting, the right to being represented at that meeting, as well as written explanations of decisions.
Ignoring those provisions would make every district employee an “at-will” worker, rendering employment protections in its union contracts meaningless, the panel said. Further, that the district sent Cheli a termination notice including language that “the basis or ground for discharge include incompetence” illustrate an intent to establish just cause, all while the district argued it wasn’t required to do so.
The panel reversed Myerscough’s motion to dismiss and remanded Cheli’s complaint for further proceedings.
Cheli has been represented in the case by attorneys John A. Baker, of the firm of Baker, Baker & Krajewski, of Springfield, and James A. Devine, of Springfield.
The Taylorsville school district has been represented by attorney Betsy A. Wirth, of the firm of Quinn Johnston, of Springfield.