The future of a 15-year-old football player expelled from Prospect High School remained in limbo after a Cook County judge on Wednesday refused to order the school to reinstate the student even though the expulsion has been overturned.
The teenager, who was barred from school in March following allegations of a sexual attack on a teammate, had hoped to be reinstated at Prospect, where football practice kicks off later this month.
In May, Circuit Judge Albert Green gave the student cause for optimism when he reversed the decision by the Township High School District 214 school board to expel the teen through December.
But on Wednesday, the judge refused to reconsider the May ruling, but stopped short of granting the teen’s parents’ request that he be allowed back into school.
While the ruling upset lawyers for the district, who requested the reconsideration, it also offered little consolation to the youth’s lawyer, Steven Glink. Because the expulsion had been overturned, Glink reasoned, the youth ought to be allowed back in school.
Sitting quietly in the back of the courtroom, the alleged victim’s father said he was pleased that school officials are trying to stand by their decision to expel the boy and another 15-year-old member of the freshman football team. A third accused boy was allowed to remain in school.
The three teenagers also face criminal charges for the alleged incident, in which they are accused of holding down a teammate in a locker room and sexually assaulting him with an object after football practice.
If found delinquent in Juvenile Court on the felony charges of criminal sexual assault, the teenagers could face punishment ranging from probation to incarceration in a state youth prison.
“I see the school is doing everything they can to enforce zero tolerance,” the alleged victim’s father said. “We’d like to see everything come to a conclusion, but we have no control of that.”
At the hearing Wednesday, Green chided both sides, saying, “All I ask is that common sense be used by all the people involved.
“There should be due process and fairness, at least that’s what you are teaching your students,” Green said. “Now get on with it.”
Though Green upheld his May ruling, the civil suit filed earlier this year by the accused youth’s parents in an attempt to get him reinstated is far from over.
Now, the school board must decide between two options: appeal the judge’s ruling or conduct a new expulsion hearing as ordered by Green.
James J. Zuehl, the District 214 lawyer, said because Green nullified the expulsion but refused to reinstate the teenager, the boy’s standing remains uncertain.
“Our hope is it will be fully resolved by the end of summer, before school starts,” Zuehl said.
Nonetheless, Zuehl said he was relieved that Green has refused to force the district to turn over specific information and documents related to the case, such as the names of students who testified against the youth and medical documents concerning the alleged victim.
Zuehl has said school officials should not be forced to turn over the names of the students who testified at the expulsion hearing.
“It’s important to remember that these boys were members of a football team, in a locker room after practice,” Zuehl said. “There are no mystery students involved here, and (Glink) is free to talk to anyone.”
Earlier this year, Green had sided with the District 214 school board by denying an initial request by the expelled boy’s parents to send him back to classes. At the time, the judge had expressed reluctance about stepping into a case involving school discipline.
But as details of the expulsion hearing unfolded, Green discovered that the school board had used an unsigned, undated document bearing an alleged confession from the boy as part of the evidence leading to the teen being barred from Prospect. As a result, Green threw out the expulsion.
One of the two other boys accused in the alleged incident last October also was expelled and is contesting the action in court.
The third boy was allowed to remain in school because a District 214 policy prohibits the expulsion of special education students.
Glink said the alternative school his client was transferred to in March is a bad fit for an honor student and athlete.
