ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Case Year State Action PP Litigative Claim
Rogers v. Bd. of Educ. 2000 CT T S Rogers claimed that her termination for failed leadership based on executing and
indirectly supervising strip searches of female students violated her due process
rights and was not supported by substantial evidence to warrant termination
Black v. Columbus Pub.
Schools
State ex rel. Quiring v. Bd.
of Educ.
Vargas-Harrison v. Racine
Unified School Dist.
when one considered that Rogers impeccable career in education
2000 OH R SPLIT Black argued that she was racially discriminated against and that her
reassignment violated her First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and was
retaliation for her EEOC claim where she reported her supervisor’s (principal)
assumed extra-marital affair where sexual activity was occurring on school
grounds during school hours.
2001 MN R S Quiring claimed that her reassignment was a due process violation because her
job was not truly abolished due to a district realignment and reduction in force
which entitled her to property interests in her former position.
2001 WI T S Vargas-Harrison claimed her reassignment and eventual termination for failed
leadership were retaliatory moves and First Amendment violations for her speech
at a district meeting and insubordination for publicly endorsing her own plan for
use of special funding rather than supporting the district initiative.
Jones v. Miami-Dade Co. 2002 FL NR S Jones contended that that his non-renewal was inappropriate because he
possessed administrative tenure.
Graham v. Putnam Co. Bd. 2002 WV S S Graham claimed that her suspension was in violation of due process and
of Educ.
retaliation based on her insubordinately and willfully neglecting numerous
requests by the principal and exhibiting great interpersonal strife.
Finch v. Fort Bend Ind. 2003 TX R S Finch argued that her reassignment to the maintenance department for failed
School Dist.
leadership due to interpersonal strife, insubordination, and negligence was
retaliatory and violated her due process protections, First Amendment rights and
was a constructive discharge.
Munoz v. Vega 2003 NY T S Munoz was a probationary principal that claimed that she was incorrectly
terminated because the superintendent did not implement all components of the
Principal Performance Review program.
Hinckley v. School Bd. of 2004 MN T S Hinckley argued that her termination during a reduction in force was incorrect
Ind. School Dist.
because her certification authorized her to serve as a principal of a K-12 school
and that she should have been retained over administrators with less tenure.
(table continues)
281