ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

wrongfully discharged for being in contact with someone in a protected class--alcoholic. The
court, not surprisingly, granted summary judgment to the defendants on this point.
Lastly, the court addressed the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by both Pierces. As to
Preston Pierce, the court explained that his expectation of another contract because it had always
been renewed was not legally binding. His further assertions that the Kansas Administrator’s Act
(K.S.A. 72-5451, et seq.) created a property interest in continued employment were misled.
Pierce postulated that the Teacher’s Due Process Act (K.S.A. 72-5436, et seq.), requiring “good
cause” for termination is implied in the Kansas Administrator’s Act. This was ill-founded. In
short review, the court reasonably asserted that the distinct difference in the due process claims
by teachers and administrators was intentional by the legislature. Administrators were not to
have as many safeguards as teachers had. In so ruling, this point nullified the remaining claims of
both Pierces.
1990
Disposition: The court granted summary judgment on all fronts to the defendants.
Citation: Holmes v. Board of Trustees of School District Nos. 4, 47, and 2, 243 Mont.
263; 792 P.2d 10 (1990 Mont.).
Key Facts: Holmes had served as the principal for 7 years and had slightly more than 14
years of experience as a teacher. Due to falling enrollments and lost revenues in taxes during the
1985-1986 school year, the defendant school district ordered a reduction in force and Holmes’s
position was eliminated for the 1986-1987 school year on March 5, 1986.
Holmes was given notice of the termination and afforded the opportunity to meet with the
board, which he did on March 24, 1986. Holmes met with the board and was notified that if he
could provide proper documentation of certification, he would be allowed to “bump” a non-
133