ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Case Year State Action PP Litigative Claim
Klein v. Bd. of
Educ.
State ex rel.
Quiring v. Bd. of
Educ.
Hinckley v.
School Bd. of Ind.
School Dist.
Christensen v.
Kingston School
Comm.
Martinek v.
Belmond-Klemme
Comm. School
Dist.
1993 MN R E Klein claimed that his administrative tenure
protections were violated when he was reassigned
to a teaching position due to a reduction in force
319
following district realignment.
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.
2004 MN T S Hinckley argued that her termination during a
reduction in force was incorrect 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.
2005 MA T SPLIT Christensen claimed that breach of contract for her
termination due to a reduction in force and district
realignment because fiscal exigency was not listed
as one of the causes for termination in her contract.
2009 IA T E Martinek alleged that his termination due to a
reduction in force was a breach of contract and a
violation of Iowa code that prevents mid-term
terminations without good cause.
After careful review of Table 17, the researcher was able to draw out three trends that led
to litigation due to reduction in force. The first trend noted was that administrators who were
either reassigned or terminated due to reduction in force claimed that they should have been
appointed to newly created positions.
Table 18
Reduction in Force--New Appointments
Case Year State Action PP
Williams v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 1982 WA R S
Breslin v. School Comm. of Quincy 1985 MA R S
State ex rel. Haak v. Bd. of Educ. 1985 MN R SPLIT