ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Holding: The court held that the plaintiff, McCormack, did not sufficiently identify where
the trial court had erred in granting summary judgment.
Reasoning: McCormack argued that she was wrongfully terminated and that her due
process protections were abrogated by M-RHSD. Upon review of the facts, the court determined
that all tenets of due process in terms of her status had been afforded. McCormack’s status was
important to the outcome, for she was a non-tenured probationary teacher serving as a principal.
However, because she was not contracted to teach, she was not eligible for the limited protection
afforded probationary teachers pursuant to § 168.126 RSMo 1994.
As to her wrongful termination charge, McCormack was made aware of her deficient
areas on at least three occasions verbally and in writing. Upon being terminated, she was
provided with a list of reasons for the board’s decision, which she requested.
McCormack’s claims of negated due process were valid yet invalid simultaneously.
McCormack had a valid claim under 168.126 that she did not receive due process before
termination as a probationary teacher. However, the language of 168.126 is such that the
probationary teacher must be contracted as a teacher. Because she was contracted as an
administrator, this claim was invalid.
McCormack’s charge of defamation of character was built around her assertion that the
board’s failure to publicly specify details about her termination has erroneously created myths
about her and why she was terminated thereby defaming her character. This charge was
unfounded, as a defamation charge requires the offending party to report a falsehood to a third
party. McCormack could produce no evidence to support such a claim.
155