ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

The search was in direct violation of board policy that mandated the farthest a search
could proceed was asking students to remove their jacket and shoes. Of more importance was the
policy that required teachers and administrators to ensure the safety and well-being of the
students in their charge. Rogers’ actions did not meet that standard.
Rogers was notified of her pending termination and the due process rights afforded to a
tenured teacher. Rogers requested a hearing by an impartial panel, which was granted. The
majority (two of three) found that Rogers should have discerned through the statements made by
students that something was wrong and acted upon that discernment. Furthermore, the panel felt
in majority that Rogers’ missteps were not deserving of termination. Upon review of the panel’s
factual findings, the board executed Rogers’ termination. Rogers appealed the termination in
court and her claims were dismissed. She appealed the ruling again whereby the case was
reassigned to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Issues: (1) Did Rogers’ dismissal violate state and federal rights to due process? (2) Was
the evidence presented against Rogers insubstantial to warrant her termination?
Holding: The court held that each of Rogers’ contentions was not without merit.
However, the statutes that gave power to a school board’s ability to employ and terminate also
provided the board with the discretion to rule as they did against Rogers.
Reasoning: Rogers contended that her termination following the panel’s findings was a
violation of due process. The court disagreed. The same statute (§ 10-151(d)) that provided
Rogers with the privilege of the panel hearing also provided the school board with the discretion
to rule as it sees fit so long as their ruling is in keeping with factual evidence brought forth by the
panel. The board was in no way required to accept the recommendations of the panel. On this
claim, Rogers was denied.
166