Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District 200, 233 Ill. 2d 396

910 N.E.2d 85 (Ill. 2009) · Supreme Court of Illinois · May 21, 2009 · No. No. 107139

Summary

The Illinois Supreme Court held that a public school superintendent's employment contract is not exempt from disclosure under the personnel-file exemption in the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. Because the contract bears on the public duties of a public employee, it must be disclosed even if physically maintained in a personnel file. The court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings concerning related issues.

Holdings

  1. An employment contract of a public employee is not exempt from disclosure under the personnel-file exemption in section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act merely because it is physically maintained in a personnel file.
  2. The superintendent's employment contract is a public record and must be disclosed because it bears on public duties and constitutes a contract dealing with the expenditure of public funds, subject only to deletion of limited personal information that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
  3. The circuit court must inspect the contract in camera only to identify personal information, such as a Social Security number or bank-account information, that must be deleted; the remainder of the contract must be disclosed in its entirety.
  4. The court did not decide whether the District waived an exemption by furnishing the contract to news media because that issue was moot after the court held that the contract was independently subject to disclosure.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a public-school superintendent's employment contract is exempt from disclosure under the personnel-file exemption in section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act merely because the contract is maintained in a personnel file.
  2. Whether the contract must be disclosed because it bears on the public duties of a public employee and deals with the expenditure of public funds.
  3. Whether the case should be remanded for an in camera inspection and, if so, the proper scope of that inspection.
  4. Whether the District waived any FOIA exemption by voluntarily disclosing the contract to news media.

Disposition

remanded

Cases Cited (10)

  • O'Casek v. Children's Home & Aid Society, 229 Ill. 2d 421, 323 Ill. Dec. 2, 892 N.E.2d 994 (2008)(followed)
  • People ex rel. Director of Corrections v. Booth, 215 Ill. 2d 416, 294 Ill. Dec. 157, 830 N.E.2d 569 (2005)(followed)
  • Bowie v. Evanston Community Consolidated School District No. 65, 128 Ill. 2d 373, 131 Ill. Dec. 182, 538 N.E.2d 557 (1989)(followed)
  • Illinois Education Ass'n v. Illinois State Board of Education, 204 Ill. 2d 456, 274 Ill. Dec. 430, 791 N.E.2d 522 (2003)(followed)
  • Lieber v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University, 176 Ill. 2d 401, 223 Ill. Dec. 641, 680 N.E.2d 374 (1997)(limited)
  • Copley Press, Inc. v. Board of Education for Peoria School District No. 150, 359 Ill. App. 3d 321, 296 Ill. Dec. 1, 834 N.E.2d 558 (2005)(distinguished)
  • Reppert v. Southern Illinois University, 375 Ill. App. 3d 502, 314 Ill. Dec. 540, 874 N.E.2d 905 (2007)(followed)
  • Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Department of Public Health, 218 Ill. 2d 390, 300 Ill. Dec. 329, 844 N.E.2d 1 (2006)(followed)
  • Primeco Personal Communications, L.P. v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 196 Ill. 2d 70, 255 Ill. Dec. 621, 750 N.E.2d 202 (2001)(followed)
  • In re E.H., 224 Ill. 2d 172, 309 Ill. Dec. 1, 863 N.E.2d 231 (2006)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Illinois Supreme Court