{ "id": 3650500, "name": "THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Board of Education v. State Board of Education", "decision_date": "1987-08-19", "docket_number": "No. 86\u20142564", "first_page": "769", "last_page": "780", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "160 Ill. App. 3d 769" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "421 N.E.2d 387", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 Ill. App. 3d 405", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 12133598 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/96/0405-01" ] }, { "cite": "367 N.E.2d 1337", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5813000 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/67/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 Ill. 2d 324", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.E.2d 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 Ill. App. 2d 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2552794 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/85/0312-01" ] }, { "cite": "498 N.E.2d 806", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 Ill. App. 3d 1092", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3603812 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/147/1092-01" ] }, { "cite": "403 N.E.2d 277", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 Ill. App. 3d 820", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3223850 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/82/0820-01" ] }, { "cite": "457 N.E.2d 435", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 Ill. 2d 111", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3163966 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/99/0111-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 Ill. App. 3d 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "388 N.E.2d 398", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 Ill. 2d 314", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2991536 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/75/0314-01" ] }, { "cite": "430 N.E.2d 310", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 Ill. App. 3d 741", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3076045 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/102/0741-01" ] }, { "cite": "494 N.E.2d 1191", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 Ill. App. 3d 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3499079 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/144/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 N.E.2d 322", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "67 Ill. 2d 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5811365 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/67/0143-01" ] }, { "cite": "357 N.E.2d 1222", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 Ill. App. 3d 956", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2727291 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/43/0956-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 N.E.2d 282", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 Ill. App. 2d 159", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5257455 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/37/0159-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1055, "char_count": 27119, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0467258309338816e-07, "percentile": 0.5523020840211147 }, "sha256": "109dc969167c02c88f9a42bf3e02923b7c5e3fdfe5f54e445ba8c2712ebcee1b", "simhash": "1:364763b7a5f3e996", "word_count": 4312 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:53:05.010141+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McNAMARA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, board of education of the city of Chicago, discharged defendant, Catherine Parkman, from her position as a tenured school nurse for allowing students to receive inoculations without parental consent, conduct which plaintiff found to be irremediable. Defendant Illinois State Board of Education appointed a hearing officer, who found the conduct was remediable, reversed the discharge and directed plaintiff to reinstate Parkman with full back pay. On administrative review, the trial court confirmed the State Board decision. Plaintiff appeals, contending that the decision is contrary to law and against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nParkman began working for plaintiff as a school nurse in 1975 and achieved tenured status in 1979. On May 18, 1983, she was coordinating an inoculation program at a federally funded pre-school, the Parren Child-Parent Center in Chicago, in cooperation with the Illinois Department of Public Health. On that day, 43 four- and five-year-old children were inoculated. Forty of the consent forms were signed by Parkman in the parents\u2019 names and initialed by Parkman. After several parents complained that their children had been inoculated without their permission and a preliminary investigation was made, plaintiff relieved Parkman of her assignment to any child-parent preschool centers and reassigned her to office duties. Seven months later, in January 1984, plaintiff adopted a resolution suspending Parkman immediately, without pay, pending a hearing. Plaintiff referred the matter to the State Board for the appointment of a hearing officer. The charge for dismissal stated that Parkman was guilty of \u201cconduct unbecoming a school nurse,\u201d that Parkman had \u201callowed students to receive inoculations without the written signature of the parents of the students,\u201d and that plaintiff found the conduct to be irremediable.\nAt Parkman\u2019s request, plaintiff filed a bill of particulars detailing seven alleged acts of misconduct upon which plaintiff based its charge for dismissal: (1) Parkman signed numerous requests for the inoculation of minor children without written authorization of the parents of those children; (2) Parkman signed numerous requests for inoculations of minor children without the written or oral authorization of the parents of those children; (3) Parkman falsely stated that Dr. Oliver Crawford had approved inoculations for Seena Paul; (4) Parkman erroneously stated to destine Jude that, if Olestine\u2019s child did not receive inoculations, the child would be excluded from school; (5) Parkman acted contrary to State of Illinois Department of Public Health Guidelines of Immunization and the Procedures promulgated by plaintiff by her actions as described in paragraphs 1 and 2; (6) Parkman submitted numerous authorizations stating incorrect addresses of students; and (7) Parkman failed to give the children who received shots the parent notification form to take home.\nOn December 6, 1985, the hearing officer issued a decision which found that charge 1 was substantiated by plaintiff only as to three children, Tiffany Hall, Seena Paul, and Thomas Tweedle. As to the other 37 children, plaintiff failed to prove that in signing the original consent forms Parkman acted without written or oral authorization of the parents. Charge 5 was proved only to the extent that Parkman failed to notify her section coordinator, Harryetta Matthews, that the inoculation program was scheduled, and was held on May 18, 1983. Charge 6 was proved to the extent that Parkman recorded the approximate address of the school rather than home addresses; however, the act was only a technical violation of an implied requirement and had no harmful consequences. All other charges and allegations were dismissed either because they overlapped with other charges or were not substantiated by plaintiff. The hearing officer then found that the substantiated charges involved remediable conduct, thus requiring plaintiff to issue the statutory warning to Parkman. Because plaintiff had not issued such a notice, it was without jurisdiction to suspend her. The hearing officer ordered Parkman\u2019s reinstatement within 10 days and full back pay and benefits from January 26, 1984, the date of her suspension.\nOn August 19, 1986, the trial court found that the decision of the State Board finding Parkman\u2019s conduct to be remediable and reinstating her was not contrary to law and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. This court subsequently entered a stay of the trial court order awarding back pay, but denied plaintiff\u2019s request for a stay of the trial court order directing reinstatement of Parkman.\nThe findings and conclusions of an administrative agency on questions of fact are deemed to be prima facie true and correct. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 3 \u2014 110.) Those findings of fact will not be disturbed unless they are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Last v. Board of Education (1962), 37 Ill. App. 2d 159, 185 N.E.2d 282.) Findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence only if conclusions opposite to those reached by the agency are clearly evidenced. (Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 501 v. Illinois Community College Board (1976), 43 Ill. App. 3d 956, 357 N.E.2d 1222.) A court of review will.not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the hearing officer where substantial evidence supports the hearing officer\u2019s decision. Gilliland v. Board of Education (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 143, 365 N.E.2d 322.\nUnder section 34 \u2014 85 of the School Code, no tenured teacher shall be removed except for cause. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 122, par. 34 \u2014 85.) Written warnings must be given to a tenured teacher before dismissal if the causes assigned for dismissal are considered remediable. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 122, par. 34 \u2014 85.) Where no warning is given, the board\u2019s evidence must prove that the teacher\u2019s conduct is irremediable. When the board fails to meet its evidentiary burden of proving that the teacher\u2019s conduct is irremediable, and when no warning has been given, the board is deprived of jurisdiction to terminate the teacher. McBroom v. Board of Education (1986), 144 Ill. App. 3d 463, 494 N.E.2d 1191; Chicago Board of Education v. Payne (1981), 102 Ill. App. 3d 741, 430 N.E.2d 310.\nThe hearing officer correctly found that irremediability is the primary issue of fact in this case. Plaintiff initially contends, however, that the hearing officer\u2019s decision is based on erroneous findings of fact. Before addressing the irremediability issue, therefore, we review the preliminary findings of fact made by the hearing officer.\nIn a written decision, the hearing officer presented a thorough and well-reasoned analysis of the lengthy testimony as it related to the issue of whether plaintiff had proved each of the seven charges against Parkman. We hold that the hearing officer\u2019s findings received substantial support from the evidence.\nAs to the first and primary charge regarding failure to obtain written parental permission, Parkman admits she signed the 40 consent forms after receiving either verbal parental consent over the telephone or written parental consent on a list she had circulated. The hearing officer found \u201cmassive evidence\u201d that Parkman obtained consent \u201cin an informal manner or on the official consent form from the large majority of the parents.\u201d\nRuby Lamon, a member of the Board of Health inoculation team, testified that her team arrived at Parren on May 18, 1983, to give inoculations, and Parkman showed Lamon a slip of paper \u201cgiving the parents\u2019 consent that the parents had signed.\u201d Lamon informed Parkman that the signatures must be on official forms. Because Parkman had none of these forms, Lamon obtained blank forms from her car and gave them to Parkman. Later that day, Lamon was given a stack of forms, each signed with a parent\u2019s name followed by a slash and the initials \u201cC.P.\u201d Lamon did not pay much attention to the initials because she would just \u201cmake sure it is filled out correctly and see the signature on the bottom, and we give the shot.\u201d Parkman testified she signed the forms in the presence of the health team. The hearing officer found that the \u201cfailure of the health team to protest [Parkman\u2019s] act suggests that this has been done before and was not unusual.\u201d Several parents and employees testified regarding their joint efforts on May 18 to help Parkman telephone all of the parents to get verbal approval. The hearing officer also noted that the guidelines and manuals relied upon by plaintiff do not require signed permission on an official form.\nThe hearing officer properly gave weight to Parkman\u2019s argument that she was presented with a crisis situation on May 18. The official consent forms were not delivered to her prior to that date, and thus she could not have mailed them to the parents. Moreover, the inoculation program was scheduled for May 20, and yet the health team arrived on May 18 without any prior notice to Parkman. The unexpected change in schedule was confirmed by several witnesses for both parties.\nThe evidence did show, however, that as to three families, the Halls, Pauls, and Tweedles, no written or verbal authorization was given. In the case of the other 37 families, the hearing officer concluded that the conduct was \u201conly a technical violation of the practice of requiring the obtainment of parental consent on an official form.\u201d\nNotwithstanding this evidence, plaintiff maintains that \u201ceven if such consents were given, the evidence failed to establish that they met the requirement of \u2018informed consent.\u2019 \u201d Plaintiff misconstrues the nature of this case. We are concerned with the discharge of a tenured employee by an administrative body, not with a medical malpractice action.\nThe second charge is identical to the first except that \u201cor oral\u201d is added. We share the hearing officer\u2019s confusion as to the rationale behind firing Parkman for obtaining only oral consents and then charging her with failure to obtain written \u201cor oral\u201d consents. The hearing officer properly dismissed this charge.\nThe third charge, that Parkman falsely stated Dr. Crawford approved inoculations for Seena Paul, also was not proved by plaintiff. Plaintiff maintains that Seena\u2019s father testified that Parkman told him \u201cthat she called Dr. Crawford on that Wednesday morning and he stated\u201d that Seena needed the shot. Plaintiff argues that Parkman, therefore, \u201cknowingly made false statements to the Pauls. Statements for which she now stands incriminated on the record.\u201d The record, however, shows the contrary. Paul testified that Parkman \u201csimply stated that she called Dr. Crawford\u2019s office that morning\u201d and was told by office personnel that Seena had not yet received the required inoculation. This evidence also supports a finding that Parkman did not merely sign 40 consent forms. She first researched each health folder for an immunization history and attempted to verify the need for inoculations from the child\u2019s parent or doctor.\nCharge 4 inexplicably accuses Parkman of \u201cerroneously\u201d telling a parent her child would be excluded from the school if she was not inoculated. Plaintiff\u2019s own official communications to parents indicated that children would be excluded if not inoculated by May 20, the date of the scheduled inoculation program at Farren.\nCharge 5 accuses Parkman of acting contrary to published Department of Public Health Guidelines and established procedures of plaintiff. The hearing officer properly found the relevant publications were \u201cfragmented, of temporary nature and singularly void of a structured and unified policy directive in the area of immunization\u201d and that many were \u201chardly legible\u201d or \u201cobsolete.\u201d Moreover, they had never been accepted by plaintiff as its official policy. In addition, the nurse who trained Parkman in 1975, Jane Faust, testified that during the inoculation program observed by Parkman in training, several parents were telephoned for verbal consent, and then Faust would sign the parent\u2019s name followed by her own initials. Moreover, Parkman observed in training that Faust was reprimanded by her superiors for refusing to inoculate a busload of children from other schools who had no health records or parental consents.\nPlaintiff maintains, however, that Parkman failed to notify her superiors of the scheduled inoculation program, as required by Board procedure. Dephane Rose, plaintiff\u2019s nursing director, and Matthews, the nursing coordinator of Parkman\u2019s region, denied authorizing the Farren program. Parkman, however, testified that at the regular in-service meeting preceding the incident, she asked Matthews about having an inoculation program at Farren. Parkman was told to be quiet and not ask any questions. Faust testified that during a regular meeting in fall 1983, Parkman asked for an inoculation program, and Matthews\u2019 \u201cusual response\u201d was to tell Parkman they would discuss it later. Parkman later called Matthews twice but could not reach her. After a person at the Board of Health promised Parkman an inoculation team and that he would notify Matthews, Parkman made no further effort to contact her.\nWe conclude that, based upon this evidence, the hearing officer was entitled to find that Parkman violated the established procedure requiring notification to the nurse\u2019s coordinator, but that the infraction was mitigated by the circumstances. The Board of Health was supposed to notify the coordinator, and failed to do so. In addition, \u201cit is not condoned, but understood that, under the above circumstances, [Parkman] tried to avoid further contact with Matthews.\u201d\nThe sixth charge, that Parkman inserted incorrect addresses of students on the consent forms, was proved but had no harmful consequences. Parkman wrote the approximate school address of 5100 South State Street on all 40 consent forms. The hearing officer found that, if the Board of Health needed to contact parents about a \u201cbad batch\u201d of vaccine, it could immediately identify the school involved and contact parents by telephone numbers and addresses obtained from the school.\nThe seventh charge, that Parkman failed to give the children parent notification forms to take home, was not proved by plaintiff. The children did receive the forms. The dispute centers on whether plaintiff should have personally given them the forms. While Rose testified that it is the duty of the school nurses to hand out the forms, Lamon testified that it is the duty of the health inoculation team to give the children the notification, which is a form printed by the Board of Health. Lamon and several parents testified about pinning the slips to the children\u2019s clothing or placing them in the children\u2019s pockets. The hearing officer was entitled to accept Lamon\u2019s testimony. The findings of the hearing officer as to the seven charges are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nAs to the central issue in this case, plaintiff contends that Parkman\u2019s conduct was irremediable. We find, based upon facts elicited in the full evidentiary hearing, that the hearing officer was entitled to find that the conduct was remediable. Thus, the failure to give notice deprived plaintiff of jurisdiction to suspend Parkman.\nThe two-part test for determining whether conduct is irremediable is whether damage has been done to the students, faculty or the school, and whether the conduct resulting in the damage could have been corrected had the teacher\u2019s superiors warned her. (Grissom v. Board of Education (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 314, 388 N.E.2d 398; McBroom v. Board of Education (1986), 102 Ill. App. 3d 463, 494 N.E.2d 1191; Chicago Board of Education v. Payne (1981), 102 Ill. App. 3d 741, 430 N.E.2d 310.) It is not enough, however, to show that some damage occurred. The damage must be significant before the conduct causing the damage can be declared irremediable. (Board of Education v. State Board of Education (1983), 99 Ill. 2d 111, 457 N.E.2d 435.) On administrative review, this court must determine whether the procedures required by law were followed and, if so, whether the decision of the fact finder was against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Board of Education v. Illinois State Board of Education (1980), 82 Ill. App. 3d 820, 403 N.E.2d 277.) The reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the hearing officer. Combs v. Board of Education (1986), 147 Ill. App. 3d 1092, 498 N.E.2d 806.\nPlaintiff contends that Parkman\u2019s conduct caused damage to the students because they suffered the typical physical reactions to the inoculations, e.g., slight fevers or soreness in the arm. Plaintiff points to evidence that several children did not feel well and were given Tylenol on the day following the inoculations. Plaintiff also sets forth the dangers of inoculation.\nThe three children inoculated without any consent unnecessarily suffered the usual physical reactions to the inoculation. However, we agree with the hearing officer that the damage was not severe or permanent enough to warrant Parkman\u2019s immediate suspension without a previous written warning. As to the other 37 children, the reactions to the inoculation would have occurred even if their parents had given written consent, because all of the children needed the vaccines.\nIn regard to whether the incorrect addresses on the forms harmed the three children inoculated without permission, the hearing officer noted that the Pauls and Halls had submitted incorrect addresses to the school in order to enroll their children at Farren. Moreover, plaintiff admits the incorrect addresses were only \u201crecord keeping and/or preparation errors.\u201d Ministerial errors are remedial conduct as a matter of law. Wells v. Board of Education (1967), 85 Ill. App. 2d 312, 230 N.E.2d 9.\nPlaintiff also argues that the giving of inoculations without consent was \u201corchestrated by Parkman,\u201d thus making Parkman \u201cguilty of forty incidents of criminal battery and forty incidents of civil tort.\u201d Parkman is not charged with these offenses, and the related legal principles are not helpful or relevant to our analysis here.\nPlaintiff contends further that Parkman\u2019s conduct caused damage to Farren. Plaintiff argues that the school was \u201cdetrimentally impacted and damaged\u201d because the incident caused a \u201ccommotion, disruption,\u201d and \u201cuproar\u201d of the normal school atmosphere. Much of the disruption, however, was a result of parents showing their support of Parkman, by demanding her return to Farren. The testimony which plaintiff relies upon does not support its position.\nFor example, plaintiff cites the testimony of Delores Robinson, a parent who \u201cdescribed the aftermath of the inoculations at Farren\u201d and Louise Searcy, a parent who testified \u201ceverything was in an uproar.\u201d Robinson testified, however, that the parents \u201cwere not upset at the program. *** No one was upset at this school or against [the] program or anything like that, no.\u201d The parents supporting Parkman were \u201cgoing to picket. *** We did not want Ms. Parkman to lose her job because of this. So we were going to speak out on her behalf.\u201d \u2022Similarly, Searcy testified that parents were upset because they did not \u201cfeel she had done any wrong.\u201d Robinson also testified that when a group of parents tried to talk to Matthews, she raised her voice and yelled at them, saying she did not want to hear any more about the matter. Matthews also yelled at Parkman, pointing a finger at her, in the presence of the parents. At one point, Barren\u2019s head teacher told parents speaking to her on behalf of Parkman to either leave or their children would be expelled.\nPlaintiff also asserts, as evidence of damage to the school, that the record shows \u201c[o]ne parent withdrew her child from the Parren Child Parent Center as a result of the inoculation incident.\u201d The page cited in the record shows that Searcy was asked whether the same people still participated in the pre-school program after the inoculation program took place. Searcy answered, \u201cYes, the same people still participating.\u201d Searcy was again asked \u201cwhether or not any children withdrew from the program as a result of this incident.\u201d Searcy responded, \u201cOne withdrew, other than one that was kicked out\u201d before Parkman left because they did not have inoculations. Searcy was again asked \u201cwhether or not there was a decrease in the enrollment in the program of children after this incident,\u201d and she responded, \u201cNo. There is still a long [waiting] list.\u201d The testimony is somewhat confusing, but it does not show that a parent withdrew her child as a result of the incident. In fact, the three children who received inoculations without permission all remained in the school.\nBased on this evidence, the hearing officer could properly find that \u201c[i]f anything, the commotion and uproar was due to the inept handling of the incident by the administration. The behavior of Ms. Matthews in front of the parents contributed at least as much to the \u2018disruption\u2019 as [Parkman\u2019s] handling of the inoculation program.\u201d\nIn support of its argument that the nursing program was harmed by Parkman\u2019s conduct, plaintiff relies upon the testimony of Rose. She testified that Parkman\u2019s conduct had a damaging and negative impact on the nursing program and on the school administration because it cast the program \u201cin an unfavorable light with the administrator who became familiar with the incident.\u201d The record does not support this assertion. Dr. J. V. Vitaccio, plaintiff\u2019s former medical director, testified that the incident may have had a positive effect on the nurses because they would be more careful in following procedures. The hearing officer was entitled to find that no actual damage was suffered by the nursing staff.\nIn regard to damage suffered by the school system, Raymond Principe, the director of the Bureau of Teacher Personnel, testified he believed \u201cthat the school community would have been devastated by such an act.\u201d He explained: \u201cWell, I think there is an obvious question of people in positions of trust who are not acting as though they are trustworthy.\u201d The hearing officer was understandably \u201cperplexed\u201d by Principe\u2019s remarks in light of the fact that his testimony, 18 months following the incident, failed to detail any actual damage to the school system.\nWe find the hearing officer was entitled to conclude that the students, school and faculty were not severely damaged by Parkman\u2019s conduct.\nThe second part of the Gilliland test requires us to ask whether the conduct resulting in damage could have been corrected had the superiors warned the employee in writing. (Gilliland v. Board of Education (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 143, 365 N.E.2d 322.) Plaintiff asserts that it \u201cneed not warn a teacher nurse to cease engaging in unlawful or improper conduct\u201d and that the \u201ccase law does not require a futile warning.\u201d Plaintiff reasons that, \u201cA circumstance of failure to maintain discipline or failure to submit lesson plans might be the appropriate subject of a warning notice but not of deliberate, rash, improper and arguably illegal conduct.\u201d We disagree with plaintiff\u2019s characterization of Parkman\u2019s conduct. As we have stated, the hearing officer was entitled to find that no severe damage resulted from Parkman\u2019s conduct except for the unnecessary but temporary discomfort suffered by the three children inoculated without consent. That damage, however, was not severe enough to warrant suspension without notice.\nPlaintiff maintains there was a \u201cpyramid\u201d effect of the seven charges it makes. Individual acts which are separately remediable may be irremediable when considered in their totality. The acts must have continued over a long period of time, and the court may also look at whether the cause itself is irremediable, and whether the employee showed a cooperative and willing attitude to correct the unsatisfactory conduct. Gilliland v. Board of Education (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 143, 365 N.E.2d 322.\nParkman\u2019s employment record was extremely favorable. From 1975 to 1980, she received superior to excellent ratings, and she never received an unsatisfactory rating. Moreover, there was no accumulation of infractions here. The single incident was limited to one day in eight years of employment. In addition, Parkman always demonstrated a willingness to correct any unsatisfactory conduct. Parkman told the parents she was sorry if she had done anything wrong. Rose admitted that Parkman was cooperative during the investigation and concerned about the incident. In her report to Rose, Parkman included recommendations as to how similar incidents could be avoided.\nThe hearing officer also properly considered mitigating circumstances, including the fact that plaintiff had no specific rule telling nurses they would be fired if a written parental consent was not obtained. In addition, the State made it mandatory to expel children without inoculations, and threatened to penalize the school system financially if 90% of the pupils were not immunized. Furthermore, Parkman had a heavy work load. She serviced all child-parent centers in the central section, and in previous years several nurses had shared that job.\nAdditional mitigating circumstances included plaintiff\u2019s computer office initially providing incorrect information as to Farren\u2019s inoculation level. On May 4, 1983, it showed Farren was in compliance, but two days later showed 70% of the children at Farren were not in compliance. Moreover, the inoculation team arrived two days early without notice, and the Board of Health failed to deliver the consent forms before May 18.\nWe hold that there was overwhelming evidence to support the hearing officer\u2019s finding that the causes charged and proved against Parkman were remediable in nature since plaintiff failed to establish that Parkman\u2019s conduct severely damaged the students, faculty or school, or was such that it could not have been corrected if a warning had been given. As a result, the failure of plaintiff to provide a statutory warning to Parkman deprived it of jurisdiction to discharge her. (Grissom v. Board of Education (1979), 75 Ill. 2d 324, 388 N.E.2d 398; Aulwurm v. Board of Education (1977), 67 Ill. 2d 434, 367 N.E.2d 1337; Morris v. Board of Education (1981), 96 Ill. App. 3d 405, 421 N.E.2d 387.) The order previously entered by this court staying the trial court order awarding back pay is hereby vacated.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County upholding the decision of the Illinois State Board of Education is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nRIZZI and WHITE, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McNAMARA" } ], "attorneys": [ "Patricia J. Whitten, of Chicago (Percival Harmon and Robert A. Wilson, of counsel), for appellant.", "Poltrock & Giampietro, of Chicago (Kathrin A. Koenig, of counsel), for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 86\u20142564\nOpinion filed August 19, 1987.\nRehearing denied September 30, 1987.\nPatricia J. Whitten, of Chicago (Percival Harmon and Robert A. Wilson, of counsel), for appellant.\nPoltrock & Giampietro, of Chicago (Kathrin A. Koenig, of counsel), for appellees." }, "file_name": "0769-01", "first_page_order": 791, "last_page_order": 802 }