ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Holding: The court held with the findings of the trial court noting that to accept the
board’s interpretation of § 118.24(3) would render the obvious protections outlined in §
118.24(6) as moot.
Reasoning: The court decided to review the case because of the likelihood that “breach of
contract claims” would ultimately arise again later. This was worth noting because at the time
this case was heard the contracts disputed had expired, essentially making any decisions on
reinstatement invalid. However, it was important for the court to address the misinterpretation of
statutes that the board was arguing. One other argument the board offered was that River Falls
had an established policy that made Kabes’s and Buchholz’s reassignment valid. This policy was
outlined in the River Falls Personnel Practices for Leadership Management Team. In this
document, the board reserved the right to reassign and assign personnel in the best interests of
the district. This initiative, however, became invalid because it was not renewed at the end of the
2001 school year--almost 9 months prior to Kabes and Buchholz reassignment.
and Buchholz.
Disposition: The court affirmed the trial court’s award of summary judgment for Kabes
Citation: Hinckley v. School Board of Independent School District No. 2167, 678 N.W.2d
485, (2004 Minn. App.).
Key Facts: Hinckley served as an elementary school principal for 4 years. During her
fifth year, the school district closed both the elementary and middle schools and consolidated all
schools into one K-12 school building. Due to this realignment Hinckley was retitled a principal
on special assignment for the remainder of the year. Hinckley was placed on an unrequested
leave of absence prior to the 2003-2004 school year due to the termination of her position due to
a reduction in force.
197