Bd. of Educ. of Joliet Twp. High Sch. Dist. No. 204 & Joliet Twp. High Sch. Dist. No. 204, v. Will Cnty. Reg'l Bd. of Sch. Trs.

2019 IL App (3d) 170376-U

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OFJOLIET TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 204and JOLIET TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 204,a body politic, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WILL COUNTY REGIONAL BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES,a/k/a Will County Regional Office of Education;WILL COUNTY EDUCATIONAL SERVICE REGION,REGIONAL SCHOOL BOARD; WILL COUNTY REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION;SHAWN WALSH; MARY CARROLL; RICH DOMBROWSKI;NANCY TERLEP BARTELS; GARY H. HOFFMAN; DENISE RUTTER;VERONICA BOLLERO; and COMMITTEE OF TEN,a/k/a petitioners DAVID A. KNOTT, JANELLE L. BASTIAN,AARON M. ELSTNER, TINA M. LEEN, JENNIFER L. LARSON,JOHN A. BROSIUS III, THOMAS R. PAJULA, SARAH L. PANDOLFI,KELLY A. DUVALL and CHRISTINA JOY, Defendants(Committee of Ten, a/k/a petitioners David A. Knott,Janelle L. Bastian, Aaron M. Elstner, Tina M. Leen, Jennifer L. Larson,John A. Brosius III, Thomas R. Pajula, Sarah L. Pandolfi,Kelly A. Duvall and Christina Joy, Defendants-Appellees).

Appeal No. 3-17-0376

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT

March 8, 2019

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County, Illinois.

Circuit No. 14-MR-2475

Honorable John C. Anderson, Judge, Presiding.

JUSTICE LYTTON delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Carter concurred in the judgment.

Justice Holdridge dissented.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: School district is entitled to conduct discovery and have the circuit court fully adjudicate its EEOA claim as an independent cause of action separate from the district's claim for administrative review of the Board's decision to grant petition for detachment.

¶ 2 Residents of a subdivision filed a petition with the Will County Regional Board of School Trustees (Board) to detach their property from Joliet Township School District No. 204 (Joliet Township) and annex it to Lincoln-Way Community High School District No. 210 (Lincoln-Way). The Board voted in favor of the petition. Joliet Township filed a complaint in circuit court seeking administrative review of the Board's decision and alleging a violation of the Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) (20 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. (2012)). The Board opposed Joliet Township's request for discovery under the EEOA claim, and the trial court certified a question for review pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 308(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2016). We answer the certified question in the affirmative and remand for further proceedings.

¶ 3 In July of 2013, several residents of the territory referred to as Neufairfield Subdivision filed a petition for detachment and annexation with the Board seeking to detach their property from Joliet Township and annex it to Lincoln-Way. The petitioners, otherwise known as the "Committee of Ten," filed the petition under section 7-1 of the Illinois School Code (SchoolCode) (105 ILCS 5/7-1 (West 2012)). After conducting a hearing, the Board granted the petition.

¶ 4 On October 15, 2015, Joliet Township filed a three count complaint seeking review of the Board's decision. Count I requested administrative review of the Board's decision to grant the petition under article 7 of the School Code, and count II requested a writ of certiorari regarding the Board's composition and procedure under article 6. Count III alleged a violation of the EEOA, asserting that the federal act prohibited the Board from granting a petition for detachment that would result in a greater degree of segregation among the remaining students in the district.

¶ 5 The trial court dismissed count II with prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed. We affirmed that decision, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Board of Education of Joliet Township High School District No. 204 v. Will County Regional Board of School Trustees, 2016 IL App (3d) 150494-U (unpublished order pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23).

¶ 6 On remand, the Committee of Ten and the Board filed a motion to set a briefing schedule and hearing. Joliet Township opposed the motion and asked for time to conduct discovery on its claim that the Board's decision violated the EEOA. Defendants responded by arguing that discovery was not available under the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. (West 2014)). The trial court denied defendants' motion, without prejudice, and certified the following question for interlocutory review under Rule 308(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2016):

"Are the Plaintiffs entitled to conduct discovery, present evidence, develop a factual record, and have the circuit court fully adjudicate their EEOA claim as an independent cause of action under its original jurisdiction separate from the claims for administrative review of the decision to grant Defendants' Petition for detachment/annexation?"

¶ 7 Joliet Township filed a timely application for leave to appeal the question, and we granted the application.

¶ 8 ANALYSIS

¶ 9 I. The School Code and the EEOA

¶ 10 The certified question relates to the Committee of Ten's petition for detachment filed under section 7-1 of the School Code and the subsequent complaint filed by Joliet Township in circuit court challenging the Board's decision to grant the petition and raising an additional claim based on the EEOA.

¶ 11 Section 7-1 of the Illinois School Code allows for the detachment of land from one district and annexation to another where the affected area lies entirely within one educational service region. 105 ILCS 5/7-1(a) (West 2012). Such a petition can be filed by the boards of each district, the majority of the register voter in each district, or by two-thirds of the registered voters in any territory proposed to be detached or annexed. 105 ILCS 5/7-1(a) (West 2012). In this case, two-thirds of the registered voters in Neufairfield Subdivision signed a petition for detachment from Joliet Township High School District No. 204, which the Board granted.

¶ 12 The EEOA is a federal statute that prohibits a state from denying "equal educational opportunity to an individual on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin." 20 U.S.C. 1703 (2012). The EEOA enumerates several activities that constitute discrimination, including the assignment of a student to a school within the district in which he or she resides other than the one closest to his or her residence "if the assignment results in a greater degree of segregation." 20 U.S.C. 1703(c) (2012). The act also prohibits the transfer of students to another district if the effect is to increase segregation. 20 U.S.C. 1703(e) (2012).

¶ 13 Joliet Township argues that the EEOA claim is an independent claim, separate from its request for administrative review, over which the circuit court has original jurisdiction, citing Board of Education, Joliet Township High School District No. 204 v. Board of Education Lincoln Way Community High School District No. 210, 231 Ill. 2d 184, 201 (2008). In response, defendants argue that the case law relied upon by plaintiffs is inapplicable because that case involved section 7-2(b) of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/7-2(b) (West 2012)), which limited the Board's scope of review in petitions for detachment/annexation. Here, defendants argue that section 7-1 of the School Code does not contain such restrictive language and, therefore, plaintiffs were required to bring the EEOA claim, along with the administrative law claims, as an appeal from the administrative proceeding.

¶ 14 II. Standard of Review

¶ 15 This appeal comes to us in the form of a certified question pursuant to Rule 308, and a certified question carries important consequences for the scope of our analysis. In such appeals, "our jurisdiction is limited to considering the question certified and we cannot address issues outside that area." Hudkins v. Egan, 364 Ill. App. 3d 587, 590 (2006); see also Spears v. Association of Illinois Electric Cooperatives, 2013 IL App (4th) 120289, ¶ 15 (scope of review in an interlocutory appeal brought under Rule 308 is limited to the certified question). Analyzing issues beyond the certified question would be to expand our own jurisdiction, which we cannot do; that is a privilege that belongs solely to our supreme court. People v. Jones, 213 Ill. 2d 498, 507 (2004) (appellate court does not possess the supervisory powers enjoyed by the supreme court). "With rare exceptions, we do not expand the question under review to answer other, unasked questions." Giangiulio v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, 365 Ill. App. 3d 823, 829 (2006).

We review a certified question pursuant to Rule 308 de novo. Spears, 2013 IL App (4th) 120289, ¶ 15.

¶ 16 III. Answering the Certified Question

¶ 17 With that standard in mind, we must observe the limits of our jurisdiction by confining our analysis to the certified question presented. That limitation renders irrelevant much of the parties arguments on appeal, which are directed toward the Board's scope of review under section 7-1 versus 7-2(b) of the School Code and the viability of an EEOA claim in an administrative proceeding. Those issues are not articulated in our certified question. The certified question asks only, and we consider only, whether Joliet Township is "entitled to conduct discovery *** and have the circuit court fully adjudicate [its] EEOA claim as an independent cause of action under [the circuit court's] original jurisdiction ***."

¶ 18 In Board of Education, Joliet Township High School District No. 204 v. Board of Education Lincoln Way Community High School District No. 210, 373 Ill. App. 3d 563 (2007), this court considered a case concerning detachment between the same two school districts involved in the present matter. In that case, as here, the racial composition of the two school districts was an issue. On appeal, the question was whether the EEOA required educational agencies to consider its prohibitions against segregation in determining whether to...