ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Reasoning: First, it is of importance to note that the due process standards set forth in the
U.S. Constitution are the same in the Massachusetts state constitution. Christensen claimed that
she had an established property interest in retaining her position as principal and that she could
only be terminated for good cause. The court disagreed. In her “good cause” claim, Christensen
faltered on the point that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 41 requires an administrator to have served
for 3 years to receive that procedural safeguard. Christensen did not meet this threshold.
Moreover, the court noted that even principals who had served 3 years with a system were still
not statutorily granted a property interest in their position. That is to say that there was no
acquisition of tenure in an administrative position. Also of importance is the fact that Christensen
was offered a hearing to discuss her termination, but she failed to secure the meeting of her own
choice. Thus, Christensen failed on both federal and state due process claims.
Second, Kingston did not violate or deprive Christensen of any rights. Therefore, because
Christensen did not possess a valid property interest, her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 could not succeed.
Third, Christensen’s breach of contract claim is grounded on the fact that termination of the
contract was a breach because it was a 3-year contract. The district countered that the contract
was moot due to the fiscal exigency necessitated by shrinking tax bases for the district. However,
the court found this to be a puzzling point based on Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, § 41, which
established that Christensen’s contract was valid for 3 years and that the district could not cite a
public policy to nullify the contract. Therefore, her breach of contract claim succeeded.
Fourth, Christensen failed to establish that the district terminated her for any reason other
than budgetary restrictions. There was no ulterior motive or malicious intent in terminating
Christensen’s position. The Kingston School Committee did not violate the covenant of good
208