ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

offering a teaching position to comply with Castillo’s tenured status as a teacher. In fact, Castillo
was offered and accepted another administrative position in another district.
Second, the court rightly dismissed the breach claim because Castillo claimed that he was
terminated. That was an inaccurate claim. He was never terminated; his administrative contract
was not renewed, and he was offered a teaching contract. As to his promotion rescindment claim,
Castillo relied upon discussion of a promotion to the high school administrative staff among him,
Rounds, and Calderon as argument that he was denied a promotion. The court aptly pointed out
that the superintendent was only entitled to recommend contractual offerings; the board was
entitled to authorize contractual offerings. Therefore, Castillo was not offered a promotion.
Third, Castillo asserted that the district discriminated against him because of his racial
class but that the court did not review this claim. This was also inaccurate. The district court
ruled that Castillo’s race claims were reviewed under his Title VII claims and that they were time
barred. The reviewing court agreed.
Fourth, Castillo claimed that he did provide sufficient evidence that his income was
abridged by the actions of the district and that he was constructively discharged. Once again, the
court ruled that his assertions were far too speculative as Castillo conceded that the extra income
he would have made was from teaching summer school, which was supplementary income and
not guaranteed from year to year like one’s certificated position. Castillo asserted that he was
constructively discharged but failed to show that his work conditions were in any way made
intolerable.
Disposition: The district court judgment is affirmed in full.
Citation: Herrera v. Union No. 39 School District, 975 A.2d 619, (2009 Vt.).
237