In a divided ruling, a state appeals panel asserted a school district in suburban Summit didn’t break any laws when it issued a one-year suspension for a middle school student found to have carried - but never used - a pellet gun at school.
Cook County Judge Caroline Moreland said Elizabeth Pasillas, the mother of a student identified only as A.A., was entitled to judicial review of Summit School District 104’s decision to expel her son for a full year because the board didn’t comply with Illinois School Code requirements. District 104 took the matter to the Illinois First District Appellate Court.
Justice Thomas Hoffman wrote the majority opinion, filed Nov. 27; Justice Freddrenna Lyle concurred. Justice Ramon Ocasio dissented.
According to court records, Pasillas’ son was 13 in May 2022 when a locker search – conducted during an investigation of Heritage Middle School bathroom wall drawings – led Dean Scott Forman to discover the loaded pellet gun inside the boy’s backpack.
“The orange safety tip on the end of the barrel of the pellet gun had been painted black, and Forman initially believed it to have been a real firearm,” Hoffman wrote. “Forman and Assistant Principal Laura Skowronek then met with A.A., who admitted that the gun was his and explained that he had obtained it from a friend. Skowronek then called Pasillas and informed her that they had found the gun in A.A.’s backpack. Skowronek completed a suspension notification form stating that A.A. was to be suspended from school for the remaining seven days of the school year for possessing a weapon and engaging in gang-like activities.”
The family argued the board failed to exhaust alternative interventions, didn’t show how the boy’s continued presence in school would be problematic and abused its discretion with a one-year suspension, the result of a July hearing at which the District 104 expulsion director said the “administrator conference” referenced on a notice for that hearing was the meeting with A.A., Forman and Skowronek the day Forman found the gun.
Hoffman quoted the School Code’s guidance for written explanations of expulsions as mandating “it shall be documented whether other interventions were attempted or whether it was determined that there were no other appropriate and available interventions.” As such, he continued, the availability of interventions doesn’t compel a board to pursue those avenues once it determines the options aren’t appropriate to the circumstances.
“The school officials noted that A.A. had been instructed on school safety and prohibited items at school, and he knew that he was not allowed to bring a gun to school,” Hoffman wrote. “According to the officials, the appropriate interventions had been exhausted. This was a determination that was within the school officials’ discretion, and we cannot say that their determination on this issue was clearly erroneous.”
The majority rejected the argument the expulsion is de facto zero tolerance policy — the School Code prohibits such structures — finding the record demonstrates administrators had discretion in what they recommended to the board. It also said A.A. was wrong to accuse the school board of determining the impact of his continued presence in school based on past actions as the school officials made that decision and the record has “indications that they were properly conducting a forward-looking analysis.”
Hoffman noted the student said he didn’t threaten or intend to use the gun, offered to undergo daily bag checks and complete community service, but again deferred to school officials’ discretion and noted the ultimate decision wasn’t clearly in error. The majority finally rejected the family’s argument the board exceeded the limits of its discretion, noting a recent School Code amendment obviates the need to look at the factors each side cited.
The old standards are significantly incorporated in the amendment, Hoffman wrote, and even if applied to A.A.’s case, “our view of the propriety of the Board’s ruling would not change and we would still see no abuse of discretion in Board’s decision to expel A.A.”
Ocasio opened his dissent by noting the Heritage Middle School incident played out on the same day as a school shooting spree in Uvalde, Texas. But he also said school officials were looking for a paint pen, quickly learned the gun wasn’t a deadly firearm and had no obligation to issue the suspension.
“For too long, Illinois schools were too quick to impose a punishment that was too extreme: Expulsion,” Ocasio wrote.
And although judicial review of school discipline “has been exceedingly deferential,” he also noted the School Code “substantially circumscribes the discretion of school officials to expel students. The role of the courts is to ensure that expulsion decisions are made within the framework provided by the statute.”
Ocasio agreed District 104 has a de facto zero tolerance policy if its only procedure is telling all students not to bring pellet guns to school and expelling those who do, which he said “is contrary to the plain legislative intent to limit mandatory expulsions to students who either possess a firearm or use some other kind of weapon.”
The record, Ocasio continued, “simply does not show that school officials considered any ‘intervention’ short of expelling A.A.” He added the record also doesn’t support a determination that allowing the boy to return the next school year “would pose a safety threat or disruption to the school that could not be resolved or addressed through reasonable measures.”
Although he said “A.A.’s conduct — bringing a pellet gun to school multiple times — is extremely serious, both as a matter of behavioral discipline and school safety,” Ocasio also said the initial seven-day suspension, apparently unchallenged, served “as a safety precaution to provide officials with the time and space to make a considered judgment about how to proceed. The problem here is that the administrative record fails to reflect any deliberation or consideration of alternatives beyond that initial response.”
A.A. is represented by Ashley Fretthold, Ben Bennett and Hannah Berkowitz, of Legal Aid for Chicago. Legal Aid did not respond to a request for comment.
District 104 is represented by Odelson, Murphey, Frazier & McGrath, of Evergreen Park.