ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

esults reflected positively on her and that they should be shared with her by the district almost
immediately. On July 25, 2002, 38 days later, Lassiter met with McFrazier where the
investigatory results were to be shared. Lassiter, having been given no explicit instructions,
brought two witnesses with her. McFrazier declined to share the report and placed a letter of
reprimand for insubordination in Lassiter’s personnel file for bringing third party witnesses to
the meeting.
At her follow-up meeting on July 31, Lassiter was informed that the allegations were
proven to be false but that she would be placed on probationary status based on her past year’s
evaluation, which was negatively impacted by the false allegations. During the fall semester of
the 2002-2003 school year, Lassiter reported various instances where she felt unwarranted
scrutiny from McFrazier. Then, in December, McFrazier requested that Lassiter answer
questions regarding the false allegations. Not agreeing with her responses, McFrazier suspended
Lassiter in January and notified her that he was recommending her termination. Following a due
process hearing, but prior to the termination hearing, Lassiter and McFrazier entered into a
personnel resolution whereby Lassiter would be reassigned to an administrative position and
considered for reemployment based on successful completion of the remainder of the school year
while McFrazier would withdraw his recommendation for termination and enter into a
confidentiality clause where none of the information in the false allegations would be discussed.
Lassiter was assigned to a non-certified and newly created position, and she completed
the remainder of the year without issue. McFrazier relayed to Lassiter that he would lift her
probationary status. That, however, did not happen, and a new superintendent, Tony Sawyer,
assumed office in July.
203