ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

administrator has a 66% chance--at least in part--to successfully litigate an adverse employment
action case where reduction in force the is key element spawning the action.
Table 17
Reduction in Force with Litigative Claim
Case Year State Action PP Litigative Claim
Pasqua v.
LaFourche Parish
School Bd.
Williams v.
Seattle School
Dist. No. 1
McManus v. Ind.
School Dist. No.
625
LaBelle v. San
Francisco Unified
School Dist.
In the Matter of
Waterloo Comm.
School Dist. and
Concerning
Gowans
Osburn v. School
Bd.
In re Appeal of
Cowden
Burke v. Lead-
Deadwood School
Dist.
Gibbons v. New
Castle Area
School Dist.
Breslin v. School
Comm. of Quincy
1981 LA R E Pasqua claimed that his salary was not maintained
properly with his tenured status following his
317
reassignment during a reduction in force.
1982 WA R S Williams claimed that he should have been
reassigned to a newly created “head teacher”
position following a reduction in force.
1982 MN R E McManus claimed that his reassignment due to a
reduction in force violated statutes that should have
allowed him to bump an administrator of lesser
seniority.
1983 CA R S LaBelle claimed that her reassignment due to a
reduction in force was in violation of city code.
1983 IA T SPLIT Gowans claimed that his termination due to
reduction in force was arbitrary and capricious
because the district cited work performance as a
component of the selection process.
1984 FL R SPLIT Osburn argued that his reassignment during a
reduction in force was illegal due to a loss of
prestige and salary.
1984 PA R E Cowden claimed that his reassignment was invalid
because the board based its reduction in force
decisions on performance and not seniority during
district realignment.
1984 SD T E Burke claimed that his termination due to reduction
in force was invalid because the district did not
follow its own policy.
1985 PA R E Gibbons claimed that his reassignment due to
reduction in force was improper because the board
employed another administrator ahead of him based
on his ability and not seniority following district
realignment.
1985 MA R S Breslin alleged that the district realignment was
used as a cover up to oust the current junior high
administrators during a reduction in force.
(table continues)