This is exactly how these kind of lawsuits end. The whistleblower is labeled a non-performer and squelched. I would submit, there will be no evidence substantiating the school district took any steps to investigate the whistleblower's accusations. Meaning, the principle was never observed over a reasonable period of time by an independent investigating party, or any witnesses / co-workers debriefed. The whole reason for the Whistleblower Act is to allow an employee to come forward without retribution. The timelines of all actions will speak the truth. I am sure the accused parties were well aware of who there accuser was and the subject of their accusations PRIOR to her termination. That in itself should be damning in their case. IF in fact that is the case, a serious look needs to be taken regarding the management of any internal investigative process within District 15.

According to the district's response, the district is admitting a drunk principal was allowed to run the school and the assistant principal was required to report that fact to DCFS first and not her immediate supervisors? That's ridiculous. The obvious question is then, why was this guy allowed to run the school for a few more years? I hope the District 15 school board is really paying attention on this one.

PFW - I think you're misreading the districts response.

I think they're saying she's basing part of her claim on the Illinois Abused and Neglected Child Abuse reporting Act - which requires a report to DCFS - yet she *didn't* make a report to DCFS, or claim she had a cause to make the report.

You can't base your suit on something you were required to do (if it indeed did happen) but then didn't do.

Scott - looked at her lawsuit and it doesn't say anything about the Abused and Neglected Child Act. The word "misconduct" is used frequently in the lawsuit. Is that what you're referring to?

Is anyone conducting a cost benefit (or cut your losses) analysis? How much is it costing the district to fight a lawsuit versus settling? Really if Wong reported that a principal was "indisposed" and the then administration did not aggressively address the transgression well.... Time to cut the losses. Oh, can we, the taxpayer, get back any of that generous pension(s) from the past administration?

Ms. Szuch should not have been named a defendant in this suit. When you feel you've been wronged, you tend to label anyone that even looked at you wrong as an adversary. The district's management completely mishandled or ignored the plaintiffs initial complaints, probably due to cockiness, cronyism, and politics. I believe a different Superintendent was in office during the initial complaints. During his tenure, you didn't need to be a rocket scientist to see that he had some alcohol related job performance issues. He should have definitely been named as a defendant in this suit. He, as well as a great majority of the district's management at that time, lied to get themselves out of some difficult situations. That's why people file lawsuits. For some reason, even habitual liars tend to tell the truth when questioned in a court of law. This is just a guess, but I tend to think it has something to do with not wanting to make new friends while in prison. Other than her complaint against Ms. Szuch, I think the plaintiff has a solid case against the district. The district's lawyers are just doing their job by posturing and racking up billable hours. For obvious reasons, the district will never allow this to go to court. After they write Ms. Wong her check, the Board should do their job and clean house of the idiots, morons, and imbeciles that created this situation. Wong didn't create it..incompetent upper management created it. When she does win, a line will form, guaranteed.