ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Holding: The Missouri Court of Appeals held that the circuit court erred in reversing the
decision of the board as it was not the circuit court’s duty to rule on the evidence presented but
rather the law applied. The appellate court did admit that they would have had a difficult time
drawing a different result had they heard the case de novo.
Reasoning: Citing Lile v. Hancock Place School District (1985), the appellate court
asserted that when reviewing a ruling by an administrative agency, it was not the court’s job to
review evidence nor the agency’s determination but rather the reasonability that a logical person
would come to the same determination. If the evidence presented can support either of “two
opposed findings,” then the court must accept the agency’s findings. Therefore, despite their
acknowledgement that they likely would have ruled like the circuit court had they heard the case
de novo, the administrative agency’s (i.e., the school board’s) decision is the only legal one.
As to Hudson’s claim of tenure protection, he had not earned “permanent” status yet
because he did not successfully complete 2 full years of service; thus, he was still a probationary
teacher and had no other tenure safeguards.
Disposition: The appellate court reversed the circuit court’s finding and remanded for the
board’s ruling to be reinstated.
App.).
Citation: McFall v. Madera Unified School District, 222 C.A. 3rd 1228, (1990 Cal.
Key Facts: McFall had served as a principal for more than 20 years in the Madera Unified
School District. During the 1985-1986 school year, three new school members were elected in
the November election. District Superintendent Duane Furman was directed in early January to
notify McFall that he would be demoted to a teaching assignment in the next school year.
Furman vehemently argued with the board on this decision as he had supervised and evaluated
136