ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Issues: (1) Did Preston Pierce have a valid claim under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act?
(2) Did the district violate Kansas’s statutes and wrongfully discharge Pierce for being an
alcoholic? (3) Did the Pierce’s hold property and liberty interests under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that
were violated?
Holding: The court held that Preston Pierce did not hold a valid claim under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The court held that neither Barbara nor Preston Pierce’s non-
renewals qualified as wrongful discharges. The court held that neither Pierce could prove a valid
property interest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Reasoning: First, the court explained that to have a legitimate claim under § 504, the sole
reason for a denial of a job has to be based on the handicap--in Pierce’s case, alcoholism. Pierce,
by his own admission in testimony, explained that his recovery was one of the reasons that he
was non-renewed. Therefore, Pierce rendered this argument insignificant.
Second, the court found Pierce’s argument that he was wrongfully discharged to be moot.
Kansas embraced the employment-at-will doctrine and had never, at this point in time,
acknowledged a wrongful discharge based on inclusion in a protected class. As the court related,
Kansas stringently reviewed wrongful discharges and typically only granted that ruling for cases
of discharge based on terminations following worker compensation claims.
Pierce then argued that this holding violated the Kansas Act against Discrimination
(K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq.)The court found no validity in this claim. In fact, the court noted that
Pierce’s claim in regard to the Kansas Act against Discrimination brought to light the fact that
Pierce did not pursue all applicable remedies under this act prior to making this claim in this suit
thereby barring this claim. The same can be said for Barbara Pierce’s claim that she was
132