A Chicago federal judge has decided it is too early to consider dismissing a suit against the Chicago Board of Education brought by a former Northwestern University student teacher placement officer, who claims she was fired for criticizing the city's public schools.
U.S. District Judge John Kness issued the ruling Sept. 19 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The ruling favored Kathleen Hayes in her March 2021 action against the Chicago Board of Education, three unknown principals at Chicago Public Schools (CPS) and CPS Chief Talent Officer Matthew Lyons.
Hayes was employed at Northwestern from 2016 to 2020, during which time she oversaw the placement of Northwestern student teachers at Chicago schools. In those years, she posted criticism of the school system on social media and promoted petitions that cast CPS in a bad light, according to court documents.
In response, Lyons complained in emails to Hayes' supervisor, Timothy Dohrer, and to David Figlio, Northwestern's Dean of the School of Education and Social Policy. Lyons cited his concerns and those of three principals. Lyons said the principals were unwilling to host Northwestern student teachers because they “believe [Plaintiff’s] presence would
expose their school[s] to potential reputational risk online.”
Dohrer then recommended to Northwestern officials that Hayes be fired, which the university did several days later, according to court papers.
Hayes sued, alleging the Board, Lyons and the principals retaliated against her, because she exercised her right to free speech. Hayes also claimed the defendants improperly interfered with the "prospective economic gain" of her continued employment by Northwestern.
Defendants moved for the case to be tossed.
Judge Kness said defendants acted too soon with their motion.
"Defendants’ arguments may carry the day at a later stage of litigation. But those arguments are premature in a motion to dismiss" and "would require factfinding not proper at this stage. Plaintiff adequately alleges her First Amendment retaliation claim. According to her, Defendant Lyons’s email was retaliation for Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech and that email led to her termination," Kness observed.
Kness added, quoting a 2022 U.S. Seventh Circuit Appeals Court decision: "The principal consideration at this stage is whether the claims present a 'short, plain, and plausible factual narrative that conveys a story that holds together.'" In Kness' view, Hayes has advanced such a narrative, presenting her claims with "sufficient particularity to put Defendants on notice about the substance of those claims."
One argument defendants put forth is they enjoy immunity as public officials. However, Kness replied the "mere presence of Defendants’ potential immunity defenses" does not render Hayes' suit invalid.
Another argument by defendants was that Lyons' email to Northwestern did not call for Hayes' discharge, so was not retaliatory, but only asked that the university respond as they "believed appropriate."
In addition, defendants maintained the email was "so trivial [that] a person of ordinary firmness would not be deterred” from exercising their right to free speech. But as with all of defendants' contentions, Kness found this one to be premature.
Hayes has been represented by Michael P. Persoon, Thomas H. Geoghegan and Willem W. Bloom, of the firm of Despres, Schwartz & Geoghegan, of Chicago.
The Board of Education, Lyons and the unidentified principals have been defended by in-house attorneys Lindsey E. Goldberg, Elizabeth K. Barton and Kaitlin T. Salisbury.