{
  "id": 3359016,
  "name": "BARBARA CAVINESS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF LUDLOW COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 142 OF CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, Respondent-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Caviness v. Board of Education of Ludlow Community Consolidated School District No. 142",
  "decision_date": "1978-04-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 14602",
  "first_page": "28",
  "last_page": "31",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "59 Ill. App. 3d 28"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "348 N.E.2d 470",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. App. 3d 742",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2805533
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/38/0742-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "366 N.E.2d 1125",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ill. App. 3d 1036",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3385980
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/51/1036-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 348,
    "char_count": 5077,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.848,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.5912212265391094e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8872420747309978
    },
    "sha256": "516be6f0477779389b61f18635af2e92b63493df5b6e9466b3ed995bb8b1bc3a",
    "simhash": "1:73d5ae667bd66e40",
    "word_count": 784
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:17:36.138296+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "BARBARA CAVINESS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF LUDLOW COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 142 OF CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, Respondent-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE MILLS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nWe treat here a fresh aspect of the tenured-teacher concept: What constitutes \u201cremoval\u201d or \u201cdismissal\u201d?\nThe facts are straightforward.\nBarbara Caviness is a teacher on \u201ccontractual continued service\u201d status and holds a certificate authorizing her to teach grades kindergarten through nine. She taught kindergarten for one-half of each day and primary physical education and art for the remaining half day. Due to financial exigencies, the Board of Education of Ludlow Community Consolidated School District No. 142 of Champaign County voted to reduce Caviness from her full-time position and reassign her to a halftime teaching position for the 1977-78 school term, with a salary one-half that of a full-time employee. The Board intended to retain her as a kindergarten teacher, but reassign the physical education and art duties to homeroom teachers. At the time of Caviness\u2019 reassignment, there were two nontenured teachers in full-time positions for which Caviness was qualified, but the Board of Education refused to place her in one of these positions.\nAfter Caviness filed for a writ of mandamus, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, the trial court ordered that Caviness be assigned a full-time teaching position.\nThat action was correct.\nThe basis for Caviness\u2019 suit is found in section 24 \u2014 12 of the School Code, which reads in pertinent part:\n\u201cIf a teacher in contractual continued service is removed or dismissed as a result of a decision of the board to decrease the number of teachers employed by the board or to discontinue some particular type of teaching service, written notice shall be given * * * and in all such cases the board shall first remove or dismiss all teachers who have not entered upon contractual continued service before removing or dismissing any teacher who has entered upon contractual continued service and who is legally qualified to hold a position currently held by a teacher who has not entered upon contractual continued service.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 122, par. 24 \u2014 12.)\nOn appeal, the Board argues that Caviness was not \u201cremoved\u201d or \u201cdismissed\u201d within the meaning of section 24 \u2014 12. It is also asserted that Caviness failed to allege or prove that there was a decrease in the number of teachers or that there was a discontinuation of a teaching service. And \u2014 the Board argues \u2014 since Caviness\u2019 employment was only reduced and the total number of teachers and teaching services were maintained, the \u201cbumping\u201d privileges of section 24 \u2014 12 are inapplicable.\nAlthough no Illinois decisions have been found construing the words \u201cremoved\u201d or \u201cdismissed,\u201d to be consistent with the purpose of the School Code the words must encompass any reduction in the extent of employment. The tenure provisions of the School Code were intended to protect experienced and veteran teachers against capricious, fickle and irregular exploits of school boards. (Relph v. Board of Education (1977), 51 Ill. App. 3d 1036, 366 N.E.2d 1125.) And limiting the application of \u201cremoved\u201d or \u201cdismissed\u201d to instances of complete termination would\u2014 as a practical matter \u2014 totally obliterate the protections intended by the statute. If this were the case, a board could merely nibble away and reduce one\u2019s employment until economic necessity forced the tenured teacher to resign. Such interpretation cannot be sanctioned.\nFinally, the Board claims there was no allegation or proof that the number of teachers was decreased. But \u2014 again to be harmonious with the statutory intent \u2014 this phrase must countenance any reduction in the number of full-time equivalent teachers. Although the total number of teachers was not reduced, petitioner alleged and proved she was reduced to a one-half time teaching position so that the sum total of full-time teachers was decreased, thereby activating the \u201cbumping\u201d privileges for teachers in \u201ccontractual continued service.\u201d To hold otherwise would simply emasculate the statutory tenure protections and circumvent the clear legislative intent sheltered under the canopy of the School Code.\nAffirmed.\nGREEN, P. J., and REARDON, J., concur.\nIt should be noted, however, that a mere change in position or status does not come within the purview of \u201cremoved\u201d or \u201cdismissed.\u201d (Lane v. Board of Education of Fairbury-Cropsey Community Unit School District No. 3 (1976), 38 Ill. App. 3d 742, 348 N.E.2d 470.) Nor, of course, would such interpretation be applied to a teacher\u2019s extracurricular duties or assignments, such as coaching sports activities, directing class plays, training debaters or other forensic students, etc. \u2014 or any other function not specifically encompassed within the teacher\u2019s primary curricular job descriptiop.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE MILLS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas R. Miller, of Monticello, for appellant.",
      "Drach, Terrell & Deffenbaugh, of Springfield, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BARBARA CAVINESS, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF LUDLOW COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 142 OF CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, Respondent-Appellant.\nFourth District\nNo. 14602\nOpinion filed April 14, 1978.\nThomas R. Miller, of Monticello, for appellant.\nDrach, Terrell & Deffenbaugh, of Springfield, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0028-01",
  "first_page_order": 50,
  "last_page_order": 53
}