Daphne Brown-Wright worked as a teacher for East St. Louis School District 189 from 1975 until 1998 and then returned as an administrator from 2002 until 2012, thus serving the District for 33 cumulative years. Over the course of her employment, Brown-Wright accumulated 180 sick days.

The District had a policy that allowed accumulated sick leave to be paid in severance pay when an administrator retires with at least 11 years of service to the District. Brown-Wright asserted that, due to the policy, she was due severance pay of approximately $48,000 upon her retirement.

However, shortly after Brown-Wright’s retirement, the District notified her that prior, non-continuous years are not considered when determining eligibility for the severance pay. In other words, while Brown-Wright may have worked for the District for a cumulative 33 years, she had only worked 10 continuous years after returning to the District and therefore she was not eligible for the severance pay. Brown-Wright testified that no one from the District had told her that her years must be continuous and that she had not read the policy when it was enacted in 2006. The District argued that because Brown-Wright had not read the policy, she therefore could not have agreed to it, and that therefore no agreement regarding severance pay existed between them. What do you think of the District’s argument? How do you think the court ruled?