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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Holding: The court held that McFerren’s behaviors--while not always the best choice--<br />

did not exhibit the audaciousness or veracity to warrant termination. Moreover, the findings were<br />

judged on evidence that was circumstantial.<br />

Reasoning: First, the district’s charge of immorality consisted of McFerren telling a<br />

Black male student that the “White man is going to kick his ass.” This statement occurred in a<br />

meeting with the student’s father and regarded the student’s direct violation of a school<br />

disciplinary action sanctioned against said student. The court reasoned, as McFerren argued, that<br />

just because the Secretary found the “White man” comment to be incendiary did not mean it was<br />

immoral based on the context. McFerren, as well as the student and father, are all African<br />

American, and the court noted that in context the statements did not incite an issue of moral<br />

concern based on the community. As the court explained, the district did not provide any<br />

credible evidence that McFerren’s statements created any uproar in the community.<br />

Second, the district levied the willful neglect of policies and law on a series of events that<br />

were different in nature but in their opinion constituted a history of negligence. Those events<br />

included but were not limited to failing to report to the superintendent when going out for lunch<br />

during school hours, failing to submit school projection figures in a timely manner, and failing to<br />

properly maintain the school website, which McFerren was paid a supplement for doing. The<br />

court viewed these as one count and found that the district missed the mark on the most<br />

important facet of its argument--persistence. The court noted that there were no common threads<br />

to bind these events together. Furthermore, the district also failed to provide evidence that<br />

McFerren was of knowledge that he was violating policies. Moreover, none of the infractions<br />

cited by the district were ever entered into his personnel file in letters of redirection or warnings.<br />

247

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!