ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

current contract. Her contention was that she did have a property interest through the end of her
current contract. Upon review of the contract approved by the state of South Carolina for use
with administrators, the appellate court determined that the language expressly laid out the
grounds for reassignments to occur. Within that language, Barr’s reassignment complied with all
applicable statutes. Therefore, her property interest claim was without merit.
Barr next argued that the method by which the school board reassigned her was a
violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 59-25-420. That statute provides teachers with tenure protection
against wanton reassignments. Barr asserted that her reassignment was a “constructive
discharge,” and that her final termination was also in violation of her tenure rights. As to the
notion of her reassignment being a “constructive discharge,” the court failed to acknowledge the
argument due to insufficient evidence. Moreover, Barr’s claim of wrongful termination was
invalid; she was not terminated, she was reassigned.
Lastly, Barr claimed that her “true” termination was also in violation of her due process
rights. Following review, the court reasoned that all due process expectations were met by the
school district. Barr was justly terminated for failure to report and fulfill the duties outlined in
her new capacity.
1996
Disposition: The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the circuit court.
Citation: Sanders v. Delton-Kellogg Schools, 556 N.W.2d 467, (1996 Mich.).
Key Facts: Sanders had served as an assistant principal for 3 years in the Delton-Kellogg
School System. At the end of her third year, she was verbally informed that she would be
reassigned to a teacher position with her next contract. Delton-Kellogg Schools and Sanders both
152