A judge has refused to end a Chicago Teachers Union lawsuit, which accuses the Chicago Public Schools board of laying off Black teachers because of their race, saying only a jury can properly address the conflicting evidence.
U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis refused March 17 to grant motions for summary judgement from both sides. The union wanted Ellis to end the suit by declaring victory for the CTU, while the Chicago Board of Education wanted Ellis to throw out the case.
The union sued the board in 2012 and 2015, alleging the board disproportionately laid off Black personnel, predominately at schools on the city's south and west sides, during efforts in 2012, 2013 and 2014 to improve failing schools. The process, known as a "turnaround," involves replacement of all staff, except engineers and cafeteria workers, if after a year on probation, a school does not improve.
Whether intended or not, these turnarounds have been discriminatory in effect, the CTU said. The board countered there was a legitimate business justification for the layoffs.
The union lodged a similar suit pertaining to the round of layoffs in 2011. U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso tossed the suit in January 2020, saying the layoffs were the result of color blind bureaucratic mechanisms based on declining black enrollment and allocation of funds.
Judge Ellis, looking at different material than Alonso did, found there was room for dispute that a jury should decide.
"Given the conflicting evidence, whether the school-level turnaround decisions were job-related and consistent with business necessity remains a question for the trier of fact," Ellis concluded.
Ellis continued, "Both sides have presented evidence concerning how schools fared post-turnaround compared to schools that were not turned around, highlighting different factors that they contend support their position. Instead of pointing to only one conclusion as to the reasonableness and effectiveness of" the criteria used, the "evidence creates a material question of fact."
Ellis further found: "Plaintiffs have at least produced some evidence to suggest that the academic performance" factor "masks a discriminatory effect," with the board responding, in Ellis' words, that a "correlation alone does not prove causation" and turnarounds are beneficial.
Looking at the competing contentions, Ellis noted the success of turnarounds is an "open debate."
In other areas too, Ellis determined a jury has to hash out the arguments.
As an example, the union claimed there is a disconnect between the expectations of the turnaround policy and the real-life demands made upon teachers. The board maintained turnaround schools had lower scores for "ambitious instruction, instructional quality, supportive environment, and teacher evaluations," which properly marked those schools for turnarounds.
In another example, the union said more white and fewer Black teachers were employed in Chicago schools after the turnarounds. However, the board cited statistics that some schools not chosen for turnarounds had higher percentages of Black teachers than those so chosen, and laid off Black and white teachers, who were rehired, were rehired at the same rate.
The union is represented by the Chicago firm of Potter Bolaños.
The board is defended by the firm of Taft Stettinius & Hollister, of Chicago, and by the board's in-house counsel.