ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Case Year State Action PP Litigative Claim
State ex rel. Haak
v. Bd. of Educ.
Sweeney v.
Special School
Dist.
Abington School
Dist. v. Pacropis
Mohn v. Ind.
School Dist.
Hatcher v. Bd. of
Pub. Educ.
1985 MN R SPLIT Haak et al. were reassigned during a reduction in
force. They claimed that they were entitled to
reinstatement to new administrative positions
318
following district realignment.
1985 MN R SPLIT Sweeney et al. claimed that their reassignments due
to reduction in force were invalid because of the
board violated their due process rights during
district realignment.
1986 PA R E Pacropis argued that his reassignment to a teaching
position and the district’s employment of an
assistant principal with less experience was a
violation of reduction in force policy during district
realignment.
1987 MN R S Mohn contended that the district improperly
reassigned him to a teaching position because
elementary administrators were not included in the
district realignment during a reduction in force.
1987 GA R SPLIT Hatcher was reassigned to a librarian position due
to a reduction in force and district realignment.
Hatcher argued that her First Amendment rights
were violated because she was denied vacant
administrative jobs for attending rallies to keep her
school open.
Daury v. Smith 1988 MA R S Daury claimed Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments
retaliation violations for his reassignment during a
reduction in force and district realignment due to
his need for psychiatric counseling following
numerous incidents of mental instability one of
which included placing a student in a stranglehold.
Pierce v. Engle 1989 KS NR S The Pierces were a husband-wife combination that
worked for the school district; both argued that
their non-renewals during a reduction in force
violated their due process safeguards and was based
on discrimination against Mr. Pierce as recovering
Holmes v. Bd. of
Trustees of
School Dist.
State ex rel. Smith
v. Etheridge
alcoholic.
1990 MT T E Holmes alleged violations of his teacher tenure
protections during a reduction in force when the
board retracted an offer to “bump” a less senior
employee because Holmes did not have
certification documentation in his possession.
1992 OH R SPLIT This case was fraught with claims that were
consolidated from numerous cases following a
district realignment. The basis of the argument was
that the district illegally conducted a reduction in
force by reassigning and non-renewing over fifty
administrators. Smith’s case stood out from the rest
because he argued that his actual job was not what
was recorded on his “written” contract thereby
barring him from reassignment.
(table continues)