Joseph Hearne v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that abstention was proper when the state trial court had entered judgment, but “further appellate review” was still possible
• holding that because “[njeither the Governor’s office, the State of Illinois as a whole, nor the IELRB is the ‘employer’ for Title VII purposes ... the ease against these defendants [is at an end].”
• holding that a governor not charged with enforcement did not meet the standard
• holding that Chicago teachers employed by the local school board could not sue the Governor, the State of Illinois, or the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board under Title VII because none was plaintiffs’ employer
• holding that Chicago teachers employed by the local board of education could not sue the Governor, the State of Illinois, or the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board under Title VII because none was plaintiffs’ employer
• rejecting disparate impact racial discrimination claims against Illinois legislation aimed at reforming Chicago’s school system

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).