ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

expecting, Terry openly admonished Winters before students, teachers, and the fire department
for not consulting with him before calling emergency services. Following the incident, Terry
established a school policy whereby all calls to emergency services had to be approved by him
before calling was allowed.
Terry was suspended on May 29, 1990, based on his implementation of a discordant
policy and inappropriate scolding of Winters. His suspension was enacted to determine whether
further disciplinary action was warranted. Following review, the board determined that “it would
not be in the best interests” of the school if he maintained his current position. Terry was
reassigned to Garfield Elementary School to serve as principal for the upcoming year. Terry filed
suit alleging that due process violations had occurred. The court granted summary judgment in
favor of the school board, and Terry appealed.
Issues: (1) Did Terry’s suspension violate his property interest in his job based on his 2-
year contract and stipulations therein? (2) Did Terry’s suspension violate his liberty interests by
harming his reputation due to the length of the suspension?
Holding: The appellate held that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment
based on Terry’s failure to raise any factual evidence that would have led to a different
determination.
Reasoning: Terry’s property interest argument was tied to his ability to “go to work,” for
he was not deprived of pay during the suspension. The defendants argued that Terry’s contract
entitled him to pay and fringe benefits not the right to go to his school or perform the duties of
the principal. While it was recognized that those were the work expectations of the board when
each entered into contract, that did not create a property interest for Terry. The court agreed
citing Thornton v. Barnes (1989) and Royster v. Board of Trustees (1986) as examples similar to
142