15.08.2013 Views

ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Citation: Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School District, 134 Cal. App. 4th 1378; 37<br />

Cal. Rptr. 3d 113, (2005 Cal. App.).<br />

Key Facts: Colleen Patten served as principal of Foothill Farms Junior High School<br />

during the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 school years. Foothill Farms was an underperforming<br />

school with around 1,000 students. Following the 2001-2002 school year, Patten was reassigned<br />

to a magnet school with around 250 students and high academic standards. Patten brought suit<br />

against Grant Joint Union High School District (Grant) alleging that she had suffered an adverse<br />

employment action (reassignment) due to retaliation for her whistle-blowing.<br />

Patten presented three incidents/issues to her superiors that she felt were used as<br />

retaliation against her. First, she reported a male physical education teacher spying on girls while<br />

they changed in the locker rooms. Second, she reported inappropriate remarks by a male science<br />

teacher made toward a female student. Third, she reported that Foothills required more security<br />

and administrators due to its spread out campus. Fourth, and most important, she reported that<br />

Grant officials had encouraged Patten to endorse blank fund reassignment forms so that a<br />

$127,000 surplus discovered during annual auditing could be used by the district rather than<br />

returned to the state. Patten reported that she was not comfortable doing this. The district carried<br />

out the process without Patten’s endorsement. Patten then reported all four incidents/issues to a<br />

state senator. The trial court granted summary judgment to Grant but did identify the fund<br />

reassignment scam as being illegal. However, the trial court did not deem Patten’s reassignment<br />

to have been retaliatory or adverse due to the maintenance of title, compensation, and<br />

responsibilities. Patten appealed.<br />

215

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!