ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

oard elected to reassign Herrera to a different location despite her insistence that there would be
no harassment claims.
Castillo completed the remainder of his 1-year administrative contract; however, the
board chose to not renew his administrative contract but did offer him a teaching position and
other supplementary duties to earn more income. Castillo accepted the position, but he never
worked in it because he was offered an administrative position in a neighboring district and
chose that opportunity over the teaching position. Castillo brought suit on several grounds
regarding his non-renewal and the phone recording. He cited the federal wiretap act, the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, and various New Mexico state laws. All of Castillo’s claims with the
exception of the wiretap claims were dismissed. Upon a jury trial, the court granted judgment as
a matter of law (JMOL) favoring the school district. Castillo appealed that decision and the
dismissal of his other federal claims here.
Issues: (1) Did the district court err in dismissing Castillo’s liberty interest claims? (2)
Did the district court err in dismissing Castillo’s breach of contract and promotion rescindment
claim? (3) Did the district court ignore Castillo’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim? (4) Did Castillo have
sufficient evidence to preclude the court’s JMOL on his wiretap and damages claim?
Holding: The court held that Castillo’s property interests were not violated, nor was the
dismissal of his breach and promotion claims in error. The court further held that Castillo’s
claims for damages were far too speculative in nature and were not well-supported.
Reasoning: First, Castillo failed on his liberty interest claims because he could not deny
that he was offered further employment by the district. The district’s decision to not renew his
administrative contract was completely legal and valid, and the district acted appropriately by
236