ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

McFall and saw no grounds for demotion. Moreover, Furman stressed that never in his tenure
had the board reassigned or demoted an administrator without the recommendation and approval
of the superintendent.
In February, McFall and Vern Genesy, a representative from the Association of
California School Administrators, met in closed session with the board to address the demotion.
During the course of the meeting, McFall and Genesy elected not to question the validity of
authority that the board had to demote or reassign but stressed that all Educational Codes of
California had to be followed.
Following the meeting, the board voted to demote McFall to a teaching position and non-
renew his administrative contract. During the coming months, McFall’s legal representation cited
the discrepancy in the board’s action based on Policy 4113. 2. McFall brought suit against the
district for wrongful termination of his principal contract based on two separate points of due
process. The trial court denied McFall’s claim and affirmed the decision of the board. McFall
appealed.
Issues: (1) Was McFall denied due process per Policy No. 4113.2?
Holding: The court held that the actions of the board were legal and justifiable because
the board initiated the proceedings rather than the superintendent. This set into motion
technicalities that legally abridged some of the due process measures that McFall expected.
Reasoning: McFall appealed to Policy No. 4113.2, which requires the following steps
prior to demotion. First, an evaluation must be completed 60 days prior to demotion. Second,
written notification for areas to improve upon must be provided. Third, the employee must be
given the opportunity to remediate all weak areas using the resources of the district. Fourth, the
superintendent must initiate demotion proceedings based on his/her personnel evaluations of the
137