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.

traffic stops with females. Flores had also served as a teacher in the Hamilton Elementary School<br />

District and the Chico State University Student Teacher Program filed complaints with the<br />

Hamilton School District for Flores’s behaviors toward female student teachers. Von Kleist and<br />

Boylan met with Flores where he denied none of the current charges or any of the prior incidents,<br />

but he did request to be placed in a teaching position. The date of this meeting was disputed by<br />

both sides. Von Kleist asserted that this meeting was a “pre-termination” meeting. However, on<br />

February 22, 2008, the district terminated Flores’s contract but did pay him the remainder due<br />

for the term of the contract in monthly installments; the district did not reemploy Flores as a<br />

teacher.<br />

Von Kleist explained that Flores was terminated for insubordination and a history of<br />

harassment toward women in work capacities. Following his termination, Flores submitted two<br />

requests to the district. First, he requested a board hearing where could attempt to clear his name<br />

and refute the charges of sexual harassment levied at him. Second, he requested to be placed in a<br />

teaching position due to his tenured status. The board entertained neither of Flores requests<br />

because of the “pre-termination” meeting on the disputed date and Boylan’s determination that<br />

Flores had not served as a teacher long enough--2 years--to earn tenure.<br />

Flores brought suit alleging three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that Von Kleist and the<br />

school board had violated his First Amendment rights as well as denied him property and liberty<br />

interests guaranteed by his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Flores also levied a 42<br />

U.S.C. § 1981 claim averring that he was terminated because he was Hispanic. Flores also issued<br />

the following violation claims: California Military & Veterans Code, defamation, false light, and<br />

injunctive relief. The defendants requested summary judgment on all charges and qualified<br />

immunity on all applicable charges.<br />

264

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!