ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Ulichny’s position, they would agree that resignation is the only viable choice. Ulichny’s
argument that her reduction in responsibilities was reason enough for resignation did not hold
with cases like Parret v. City of Connersville (1984) where a detective was relegated to line duty
and had his office placed in a closet. Ulichny did not receive a pay deduction and continued to
perform the duties of a principal. The court could find no reasonable person or jury that would
agree with Ulichny’s assertions.
Third, to successfully defend a claim of deprivation of liberty interests on the grounds of
defamation, Ulichny had to show that Merton espoused false knowledge in regard to her and/or
her job performance. Ulichny relied on numerous public statements to prove this point; each of
these statements was ambiguous at best and could not be shown to be falsehoods. Upon these
grounds, the court refuted Ulichny’s defamation claim. Due to the following findings, it was
pointless to argue that the defendants conspired against Ulichny if the court had established that
the defendant committed no violation.
Disposition: Summary judgment for the defendants was granted in part. Federal claims
by the plaintiff were dismissed. State claims by the plaintiff were remanded to the circuit court.
App.).
Citation: Bradshaw v. Pittsburg Independent School District, 207 F.3d 814, (2000 U.S.
Key Facts: Lanell Bradshaw was hired as the principal of Pittsburg High School in 1995.
The Pittsburgh Independent School District Board (ISD) determined to reassign Bradshaw.
Following notification of the pending reassignment for the final year of her contract, Bradshaw
sent letters to the superintendent, board members, and the local paper. In this letter Bradshaw
requested to be let out of her contract with pay, criticized the board’s handling of her contract
situation, and claimed that the board failed to support her amid allegations that she misused
171