School Employees' Statements Regarding Bus Driver's Misconduct Privileged Under Tort Immunity Act 

A school district's negative statements regarding a bus driver's conduct are privileged under the Tort Immunity Act, according to the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District.  In Goldberg v. Brooks , No. 1-09-2578 (April 20, 2011), the plaintiff had been employed as a bus driver for a private bus company serving the school district.  A teaching assistant for the school district who was assigned to the plaintiff's bus route alleged that the plaintiff drove her against her will, and she reported this allegation to the principal.  The principal also alleged that the plaintiff had attempted or threatened to run over children crossing the street.  The principal reported both allegations to the plaintiff's employer, resulting in his reassignment to another position outside of the school district.     

The driver sued the school district for defamation as a result of the statements the teaching assistant and principal made about his conduct on the job. The court held that the teaching assistant's and principal's  statements were absolutely privileged under the Tort Immunity Act, as they were made per the assistant's duty to report and the principal's duty to address the driver's misconduct.  The court also ruled that the Tort Immunity Act provides immunity to public employees for communicating information within the scope of their employment.  Both the teaching assistant and the principal were acting within the scope of their employment in reporting the driver's misconduct and, as a result, immune from any liability.