ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

school board president, received reports of numerous sexual harassment grievances filed against
Kirschling in his former school district. After discussion, Lysik contacted Kirschling and
informed him that the board had changed course and no longer supported him as a secondary
principal in the district. Lysik encouraged Kirschling to withdraw his acceptance to which
Kirschling requested a hearing, which was denied.
On June 9, 1986, Lysik presented to the board that Kirschling was retracting his
acceptance. On June 16, Kirschling’s attorney notified Lysik that he had not withdrawn his
candidacy for the principal position and proceeded to file suit claiming breach of contract,
promissory estoppel, and under 42 U.S.C. §1983 that his due process rights were violated. The
defendants petitioned for summary judgment.
Issues: (1) Did the defendant breach Kirschling’s contract under the Delaware Statute of
Frauds (Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 2714(a) (1975)? (2) Did Kirschling hold a valid property interest
claim in under 42 U.S.C. §1983? (3) Were board members O’Neal and Roberts entitled to
qualified immunity?
Holding: The court held that Kirschling did have a valid contract and that he was entitled
to due process measures such as a pre-termination hearing. Finally, the court held that the board
members were not entitled to qualified immunity.
Reasoning: Using the board minutes as support, the plaintiff successfully showed that the
board had entered into contract on May 22, 1986, when the board formally voted and appointed
Kirschling and the minutes were signed by Lysik. It was not mandatory for Kirschling to have
signed any contract offer at this point. The court in its hearing determined that all facets of the
board minutes and subsequently drawn up contract were sufficient to satisfy the Statute of
Frauds. The defendant argued that Kirschling’s oral acceptance of the position was not binding.
122