ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

determine whether any further action was needed. During this meeting, many parents offered
support and criticism of Ulichny; Flynn staunchly stood in support of Ulichny’s handling of the
incident.
In February, the board rescinded its vote to offer Ulichny a 2-year contract after critical
parents learned of the closed session meeting and complained that the board’s decision violated
Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law (Wis. Stat. § 19.81). Following this event, the board received
numerous requests for letters and correspondence regarding Ulichny based on Wisconsin’s
Public Records Law (Wis. Stat. § 19.31, et. seq). The board handled this accordingly and
provided Ulichny the chance to respond to anything in the correspondence prior to its release.
Ulichny did ask that letters containing clear falsehoods not be released as many of those could be
irreparably damaging to her reputation. The board moved forward with the release of documents
and the media fervor continued with the “wedgie” incident.
In March 1998, Ulichny accepted her new 2-year contract, which was offered because the
board had missed the window of opportunity to notify Ulichny of its decision to non-renew her
during the investigation. Immediately after signing the deal, Flynn called Ulichny in to help him
revise her responsibilities at the school as Flynn was assuming the role of intermediate school
principal while Ulichny would maintain her salary and principal title. She refused to take part in
this process and Flynn later issued a memo detailing the changes in responsibilities.
Concurrently, Flynn also issued a year-end evaluation to Ulichny that cited numerous areas in
critical need of improvement and signs of regression on Ulichny’s part. This was a stark contrast
to her evaluation just 6 months earlier.
In August 1998, Ulichny and Flynn met with representing counsel to discuss the new
changes in responsibilities. Ulichny was assigned to a great deal of supervisory work during the
169