District 150 did not violate Julie McArdle’s first-amendment rights when they terminated her contract. Evidence presented in court basically confirmed District 150’s statement to the press on April 29, 2009. Specifically, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois found that McArdle was terminated without cause, pursuant to her employment contract, and that the decision to terminate her employment was made before she reported alleged illegal activities of her supervisor, Mary Davis.
McArdle had argued that her termination was in retaliation for blowing the whistle on Davis. But the court found that the timeline of events simply didn’t comport with McArdle’s assertions:
Plaintiff’s own evidence shows that McArdle did not report Davis’ alleged illegal conduct until after learning that the District intended to terminate her contract. When Broderick, the vice-president of the Board of Education [sic], called McArdle on April 21, 2009, McArdle was given actual notice of her supervisor’s decision to exercise the buy-out provision of her contract. The record before the Court illustrates, therefore, that the decision to terminate McArdle had effectively already been made, and McArdle was notified of this decision before she engaged in allegedly constitutionally protected speech. While some of the Board members saw McArdle’s email regarding Davis’ alleged criminal conduct, the superintendent and vice president of the Board had already decided to terminate McArdle’s employment and had effectively and clearly communicated this decision to her before she ever publicized Davis’ alleged criminal activity. Thus, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the District was motivated by McArdle’s future speech when deciding to exercise the early termination provision of her contract.
Incidentally, the court document erroneously identifies Broderick as the School Board vice president; he was actually the Human Resources administrator.
McArdle also argued that Davis orchestrated her termination by giving her unwarranted bad reviews and giving district administrators a bad report of her performance. However, the court found no evidence for this:
As illustrated in the record before this Court, the District had received numerous complaints from parents and coworkers about McArdle’s actions and statements while principal. McArdle was also informed of these complaints and given an opportunity to correct her actions and attitude before the District chose to terminate her employment. These complaints did not come solely from Davis, and there is no evidence before the Court to establish a genuine issue of material fact that Davis orchestrated these complaints, as argued by Plaintiff. […]
When making its initial determination, [Superintendent Ken] Hinton and [Human Resources Director Tom] Broderick considered numerous complaints made by parents, students, and teachers against McArdle in addition to the performance reviews and personality conflicts reported by Davis. The Board, when finalizing the decision to terminate McArdle, also considered evidence in addition to and not provided by Davis.
In short, McArdle failed to prove there was a conspiracy against her orchestrated by Davis. You can read the full 15-page opinion here:
Summary-Judgment-6-7-2011
Way back when this started, I was privy to hear about some the parent complaints against McArdle. Not their substance, just that there were complaints. It was also pointed out to me that McArdle knew she wasn’t going to be rehired and wasn’t very happy about that. Now it comes out that she blew her whistle after the fact. What a waste of time and money.
What bearing does this ruling by Mihm have on the case against Davis? The truth is that none of the allegations against Davis would have been made had it not been for McArdle. Originally the administration and the board made the decision to fire McArdle based on the opinions of others and the conclusions that they drew. Mihm has now ruled based on his opinion of the data that McArdle’s whistleblowing was part of her job and that she blew the whistle after she knew she would be fired. Of course, District 150 officials didn’t regard the whistleblowing to be part of McArdle’s job description–they ignored her findings. Personnel matters in District 150 are always a bit fuzzy because evaluations of employees are always primarily subjective. In my case, since I didn’t know McArdle or Davis, I based my own opinions on my distrust of the decision makers. All opinions. But I have always been troubled by Emtronics’ reports of threats against him.
Now the Davis case is still pending. This is the more important case and the results should not be based on opinions.
Sharon — One could make the case that the allegations against Davis would never have been made had it not been for District 150 terminating her contract. According to the court documents, McArdle knew about the illegal dealings of Davis in the Fall of 2008, but only reported it in April 2009 after she learned of her contract termination. In fairness, the court found there was no evidence that McArdle’s actions were retaliatory, but the timing does raise suspicions.
I think that the impact of this decision on the other case is minimal. The Court said that McArdle isn’t entitled to protection as a whistleblower. However, for whatever reason she reported the information she had, the fact remains that David “allegedly” stole District funds / misappropriated for own use — whatever phrasing you want to use. If that is illegal, it should stand on its own without regard to how / why / or by whom it was disclosed.
isn’t it possible that it purposely took a significant amount of time to pass for the entire “whistleblowing” process to take place??…could one speculate that when the dubious financial information was discovered, investigated by McArdle, her findings then reported to her superiors, and all of it investigated all over again, the actions of the administration may have been moving deliberately slowly so they could stall until McArdle was fired, figuring that none of the financial information she uncovered would ever see the light of day? Nah, that could never happen in D150…
I was convinced that McArdle would win this suit, but hey, chalk another one up for those who would rather ruin someone else’s professional life rather than be concerned about rooting out wrongdoing that was going on right under their noses. Another great instance of the time held truth, “No good deed ever goes unpunished.”
Read the PJStar article about this very carefully…it states the claims against Hinton and Broderick were dropped after testimony from them “made it clear they didn’t believe her when she came to them with the allegations,” according to McArdle’s lawyer. That’s right…Hinton and Broderick said they simply just didn’t believe her or her evidence, so apparently that makes everything just fine and dandy.
If Mary Davis is found guilty of doing what she is accused of doing, I wonder if just not believing McArdle will still stand up as an acceptable excuse.
C.J, I understand your point and agree with that possibility. The truth, also, is that McArdle’s life and career have been impacted, but I believe her career is now on track and her personal life, in the long run, will not be severely affected by her brief encounter with District 150. She may even be better off. The same may not be true of Davis. Once again, I am ready to wait for the next court decision since my opinions don’t matter much. In the end, the timing of McArdle’s whistleblowing doesn’t affect the Davis case.
that McArdle. Ready to go right along with the status quo until she found out her ass was out the doe.
Mcardle started telling the minute she found wrong doing. Hey….Davis was her boss and Hinton was too busy to bother returning her calls. He directed Davis to handle it. Well Davis handled it by asking the fab 5. snooty parents and kids to “make up” untrue stories about McArdle to help Davis fire her at the end of the year. I can hardly wait for MDs “defence” of her actions in July….or until she runs out on continuances….PS Doesnt Judge Mihm live in north Peoria? Hmmmmm
First, no one ruin McArdle’s career expect McArdle. Just maybe the District knew, without McArdle’s help about Davis. Just maybe, Davis isn’t guilty. Sharon and others are so cynical about District 150 that they don’t think anyone but themselves, are smart enough to know what’s going on in the District. No one at District 150 is obligated to go on a blog and admit they are doing this or investigating that. Just maybe, people in finance at the District knew something wasn’t right. Maybe McArdle, who was according to some Board members, not performing as required. The horrors! Just maybe they didn’t want to hire her back because of Staff and parent complaints and/or performance. It happens. So what Hinton didn’t beleieve it. He isn’t the last voice when it comes to criminal activity which by the way, so far, no one has been convicted of except here or there on blogs. Just maybe what Davis did wasn’t so much theft as it was acting not according to procedures. We all will just have to wait and see. But the FACT still remains. After McArdle found out the second year of her contract wasn’t going to be taken, then she claims whistle blower status. Even Stevie Wonder could see the after the fact and McArdle filing what turns out to be a baseless lawsuit is what ruined her own reputation. It just might be that some people at the Admin Building do know what they are doing and if it involves personnel, then they have no obligation to tell Sharon, myself, or anyone else what is going on. If Davis is found not guilty I wonder how commenter’s here will react. It will surly be a conspiracy against everyone by the dark room Board at District 150.
Good name: Idiotwatcher2 Sit in front of a mirror do we? Now Judge Mihm is in on it? And Davis had the power to bring parents in to complain against her along with Staff members? What about performance? She rigged that to? Better let you get back to your UFO conference. By the way, I saw a black helicopter landing at the District offices the other day. Wonder if it was Hinton and Mihm??
I believe a post the other night said we should all get ready for the idiotwatcher2’s and family to start up…and so it goes huh? The fact of the matter is that Julie McArdle was incompetent, mean, spiteful and downright rude to those with whom she worked and to parents and students. She has a long track record of short employments and I have heard people in other districts in which she has worked express their excitement over her leaving each time she moved on. That’s the facts Jack pretty though they ain’t. You don’t have to agree, but before you disagree do a little research. This was a typical Dist. 150 hiring…pick up others’ refuse and then be awed when it smells. So idiotwatcher2…keep posting. It’s entertaining. Like grade school drama!
Emtronics, aren’t you a MAILMAN? When did you get a law degree?
If D150 felt that Mary Davis was simply “acting not according to procedures,” I don’t think the District Attorney’s office would have filed criminal charges if she was simply “acting not according to procedures.”
“Just maybe, people in finance at the District knew something wasn’t right.” You seriously want to suggest that there might have been other people at D150 that knew about what Davis was doing, but didn’t bother to report it to Hinton? Sounds like Sharon has a reason to be cynical if that’s the position you take, Emtronics, because that just might suggest a lack of oversight, fear of reprisal for whistleblowers (gee, how about that?), and an inept boss at the top of ol’ D150. But, of course, when told by McArdle, Hinton and Broderick didn’t believe her, why would they believe anybody else?
“So what Hinton didn’t believe it.” Really, dude? McArdle took her evidence to Hinton and Broderick first, and then to the cops. The cops actually decided to believe her, and guess what they found… enough for 8 felony theft charges and an official misconduct charge. Oh, and an entire year of missing financial records.
Maybe, just maybe, if Stevie Wonder was the Superintendent of D150, HE would have seen it.
I don’t need a law degree to have common sense and besides what I posted doesn’t require a degree. Maybe you need one to read and understand it though. As for not reporting it to Hinton, all anyone knows other than Hinton himself, is that Hinton simply didn’t believe McArdle’s version. Maybe he believed what his Finance people were telling him though. Who was there in Hinton’s office? None of you. By the way. The District took it to the cops who investigated and turned over their findings to the SA. The SA felt there was enough to charge her but who knows, she may be innocent, she may get it reduced. But none the less, here comes the Hate Bus. BTW, I was told that indeed there were people on to Davis and she was suspect, and they told Hinton. Fact remains. McArdle didn’t become Paul Revere until she got her walking papers.
BTW, what does my profession have to do with anything? Dreamweaver, what do you do? Brain surgeon?
Emtronics, I didn’t mean to engage in a quarrel with you–or for others to “help me” pick a quarrel with you. We have both had differences of opinions about this case. I did say that I was upset when you were getting threats because of your opinions. I don’t see any point in all the anger surrounding this case. Yes, I’m cynical about the whole series of events and how McArdle was fired. The “why” is a question to which I can’t really speak; however, the “how” has always disturbed me–especially, when children were affected by getting rid of McArdle before the end of the school year–that just wasn’t necessary. If McArdle doesn’t have strong proof that she blew the whistle before there was a threat of her termination, then Mihm was probably right to rule as he did.
Whether or not Davis is found innocent or guilty is up to the courts. I see no reason to second guess that process or to continue this discussion beyond the decision. As Lady McBeth said, “What’s done is done.”–or will be done.
there WAS a reason for the District to act when it did. Had they not given the notification then, it would have cost them plenty. It most assuradly was necessary. As Jack Nicholson said – “you can’t handle the truth”.
Giving notification might be in the contract but asking McArdle to leave early–causing confusion and getting the kids involved in adult decisions–that wasn’t in the contract. Bringing in a new principal for such a short time was very unnecessary–and then we forget what a great job the district did in hiring a new principal for the next year.
Fact check: McArdle didn’t “leave” early she finished out the year just as would be expected. Instead of doing so with dignity and professionalism she continued to reach from the grave and wreak havoc for the next few months. Be proud Ken Hinton for having absolutely no foresight or leadership skills.
most of you on this blog need to GET A LIFE!
Sharon, you are right. Opinions are everywhere. I’ll wait and see how the Davis thing goes. The rest of this is moot because Judge Mihm does have a LAW DEGREE and I won’t second guess him. I have said my piece. Peace.
Yes, I remember the replacement for McArdle. Wasn’t he hired from outside the district? Just wondering, because Spangs was quoted in the jstar as saying there were “extra” principals and that’s why they got rid of Julie. Also, if Broderick and Hinton were completely innocent, why did they make a sudden exit after the allegations against Davis came to light?
Am I mistaken? Wasn’t McArdle asked to leave before school was out–wasn’t there a sub who took care of all the end of the year responsibilities?
McAdle was still in the building and acting principal until all students were out of the building for summer break. I remember well because she attempted to keep several students from graduating 8th grade at the last minute. She left her mark.
HereWeGoooooo: Why are you a hater?
worth a dollar. Cheapened by easy money(blame)and petty vindictiveness. The successor “cooked” his own goose. Did the search reveal he failed priesthood? Don’t know. To bad the kids had to suffer through what is now 5 principals for them. Hopefully a lesson in leadership and responsibility…
Ok what I have learned here; 1)Dis anything McArdle, you are a hater. 2)You can run from crimes simply by retirement ie Hinton 3)Everything District 150 is a conspiracy 4)No one here seems to give anyone at District 150 enough intelligence to even spell conspiracy. 4) Just maybe McArdle sucked at being Principal so much so, she couldn’t convince anyone to investigate Davis and 5)until after her notice was received that she wasn’t needed, then the wheels started turning.
BTW: Since when do young children really care who the Principal of their school is?
We can only assume that the majority of commenters here were some of the players at Lindbergh. You people are so stuck up if you were caught in a rainstorm you’d drown. What a horrible example you set for your students. I suggest you sit in on some anti-bullying programs. Emtronics, can’t imagine what a low blow life must have dealt you to have so much hostility in your heart for a person you don’t even know, not to mention the hateful garbage you pump out on your rag. The “threats” you allegedly get are surely a figment of your imagination as noone would waste their time on anyone so irrelevant. And isn’t this taking time away from your selfless mission to save the lunch ladies? Tsk tsk.
As a casual observer….Hinton and Broderick did leave early. We had to pay someone extra money to cover for them. Why they left is not as important as how much it cost, when they left. As far as McArdle being a terrible principal, when has that ever been a reason to fire a principal? Wasn’t there a recent drama about a long time terrible principal finally being fired when Lathan came on board? How about all the allegations about the Manual principal being a “terrible dictator?” Notice, I said allegations, not facts. As far as Sharon Crews being cynical, why wouldn’t she be? I am sure she has seen a lot of “dirty deeds done dirt cheap” over the years. It does sound like McCardle told after she was fired. I do believe that the district has a long history of ignoring or sweeping it’s messes under the rug. I wish that someone would take all the crap and put it in a book. It could be titled “how to kill a good school district”. Misspent monies, trips to China, buying useless houses, hiring incompetent administrators with a history of ruining districts, and the lists goes on. Most people would think that it was purely fictional. They would probably think no one could screw up that bad. The really bad part of this is that the children are the real losers. The district spends money on things it wants, but doesn’t need, rather then things it needs, oh, for instance, counselors. But, all this has been said before, kinda of like, everyone talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it. Lets just remember the real losers here, all of us, not the people who take the money and run.
I think the point that people aren’t grasping is that McArdle did report the irregularities. She just happened to report the theft of the chickens to the fox.
Well, for someone who says I am irrelevant, Idiot you sure do spend a lot of time flaming me. Sadly that is what you point your finger at everyone else for doing. And thanks! I have a “rag” which by the way you can avoid with a mouse click and again make it irrelevant. I don’t know McArdle and if she had prevailed, then my angst would be against the administration of the school district for costing taxpayers more money for a settlement and the fact someone had their rights violated. As it stands, a Federal judge threw it out for lack of merit. As for the threats, I could care less whether you believe them or not but they probably came from you. Who knows. Have a nice day.
Point: Exactly….
It seems a little perplexing… McArdle started with trying to get answers from David in October 2008 and then Davis responded in December 2008.
As early as October of 2008, McArdle attempted to discuss the financial discrepancies
with Davis, her current superior and previous Lindbergh principal. Davis responded in
December, telling McArdle that the Lindbergh financial books had already been audited.
Also, the complaints against McArdle started in October 2008.
Then McArdle went to Hinton and Bradshaw and they didn’t believe her. Time ticks on and sometimes no one does believe you … just like the guy who tried to get the SEC to look at Madoff … took many years and the damage kept acruing for the clients.
Emtronics: I do not think that it is all or nothing — there are positive and negative things going on in D150. The challenge is always to seek some sort of balance and to acknowledge both sides of the coin. It is just sad and disrespectful when people resort to name calling when people disagree. I cannot remember is you felt that buying the properties on Prospect was an appropriate decision or not … sometimes people are too negative yet to ignore the negative is just to repeat negative history and have it occur in the present and future with the same insane results.
JANUS 1975 … that would be an awesome idea … truth is usually stranger than fiction.
“Idiot you sure do spend a lot of time flaming me”
Nah. Took about 32 seconds.
Ah come on Idiot. It took more than 32 seconds to run the spell checker.
Karrie, I didn’t have a problem with 150 buying the houses. I wanted the school in the park and besides, buying property is a good investment although these days who knows. I look back and wonder now what were they thinking.
I was ready to stay away from this topic, but I do have one question about the whistleblowing angle. From a legal point of view only (which I guess would be Mihm’s point of view), was McArdle whistleblowing when she began fielding her questions to Hinton and/or other district employees or was she whistleblowing only when she went to the police? If Mihm is considering only the latter, then I would understand his ruling. However, for those of us who are distrustful of District 150’s way of handling personnel matters, I personally believe there is a very good possibility that McArdle’s attempts to get at the truth internally could well have led to the desire to get rid of her. Emtronics, I disagree with you on this issue, but you certainly have a right to your point of view. There are always two sides to every story. I just leaned toward believing the one side from which I received information. However, I can’t claim to know anything from first-hand knowledge–which means my opinions are just that–opinions. Again, the case against Davis is a whole different matter–and the courts will decided and then we should all put the story to rest.
Another rumor that I just heard–is it true that the high schools will not have deans next year–that the assistant principals will serve in both capacities? If so, it shouldn’t take long from everyone to realize that such a cost cutting measure(or whatever its reason) will be a disaster.
Here I am again. Have you all read Elaine Hopkins article on PeoriaStory.com questioning Quest’s connection to the Gulan movement? Rob Parks on WMBD radio this morning denied the connection–just check out all the online references this group.
Obviously after reading the ruling by judge it is obvious he erred in his ruling and hopefully will be corrected if McArdle decides to appeal.
Idiotwatcher–please explain how it is obvious that he erred. I would like to believe thaat her erred but as C.J. posted above, “According to the court documents, McArdle knew about the illegal dealings of Davis in the Fall of 2008, but only reported it in April 2009 after she learned of her contract termination.” Again, I am asking for a legal interpretation of whistleblowing. Is it whistleblowing if an employee questions another employee’s activities internally or is it only whistleblowing if the employee complains to an outside entity such as the police?
He erred.
Is it fact he erred….a federal judge in senior status….wow. Sounds like sour grapes. But of course as I said earlier…here comes the McArdle family.
Sharon, I have to agree…let the courts decide the other part. And I guess with that said we should accept the court’s decision on the McArdle case. Obviously McArdle has one timeline but couldn’t prove it and the district had another timeline they could prove….
Sharon, I heard the same thing about Dean/Asst. Principals. I also heard the district has several new positions…’Principal on Special Assignment’. Supposedly Johnson and Delinski didn’t get the building administrators’ evaluation done on time so principals or administrators moving to asst principal positions can not be reclassified, receive a new title, or lose any money. What a costly mistake.
Really? That is interesting….
Considering the number of referrals written per day (data that I am compiling now), the District will soon find out that the assistant principals will be deans because that’s all they will have time for. I haven’t heard how many assistant principals will be at each school–I wonder if the total is more or less than the current number of assistants and deans. At least, they won’t be called “Climate Control Officers” as they were named at Manual.
We will have three assistant Principals next year at RHS.
SHaron: I was reading the document CJ posted about Mihm’s ruling … not sure what reported means ….. from the document McArdle started with Davis in October 2008 when the complaints are McArdle started too and it seems McArdle did not make progress with Davis … does reporting mean Hinton and administration? … I did not read the entire ruling …
As early as October of 2008, McArdle attempted to discuss the financial discrepancies
with Davis, her current superior and previous Lindbergh principal. Davis responded in
December, telling McArdle that the Lindbergh financial books had already been audited.
Also, the complaints against McArdle started in October 2008.
From Mihm’s written opinion:
“Plaintiff, in her Response to the District’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#68], seeks to voluntarily dismiss her claims against Ken Hinton and Thomas Broderick and her claim under the Whistleblower Act.
In other words, even McArdle and/or her attorney ultimately felt that a Whistelblower claim wasn’t worth pursuing any longer.
Sharon, the Climate Control Officer was not the dean at Manual. The academy leaders were the deans and were each in charge of the discipline for their own academy. Two academy leaders weren’t able to handle the discipline so hopefully the deans will do a better job. Manual is suppose to have two deans this coming school year in addition to the 4 academy leaders and 4 counselors.
There are building (should say remodeling) a room off the cafeteria at PHS for a new Dean’s office. So I guess that means there will be a Dean at PHS next year.
Of course Mihm erred. LMAO