ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

year. Joseph brought suit against the board for termination without cause. The trial court granted
summary judgment in favor of the school board. Joseph appealed.
Issues: (1) Did the court err in granting the district summary judgment?
Holding: The court held that Joseph’s claims were invalid and that the board had
accurately applied all provisions of applicable code.
Reasoning: Joseph argued that he was entitled to a “clear and concise” list of reasons that
led to the board’s non-renewal of his administrative contract. Joseph’s insertion of “clear and
concise” was done to imply that the reasons provided to him were not. That point, according to
Joseph, made his non-renewal arbitrary and capricious. The court patently refuted this argument.
Code 20-6.1-4-17.3 requires a list of reasons. At no point does the code dictate the degree to
which the reasons must appeal.
Joseph also argued that under the same code he was entitled to an “evidentiary hearing.”
Joseph’s claim was once again refuted; the statute and case law made clear that all that was
required was “timely notice of non-renewal.”
Finally, Joseph argued that his permanent employment status was violated under § 10.5
of the Teacher Tenure Act of California. This argument was also meritless. Permanent status
does not extend to administrative positions only teaching, which is memorialized by Joseph’s
acceptance of a teaching position.
Disposition: The trial courts granting of summary judgment was affirmed.
139