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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

In Williams v. Seattle School District No. 1, (1982 Wash.), numerous vice-principals<br />

were reassigned to teacher roles, but they were denied “head teacher” positions that were hired<br />

later. This position was very near to the vice-principal jobs that were terminated. However, the<br />

schools succeeded in litigation because the “head teacher” roles did not carry some of the same<br />

job duties or certifications. Therefore, this allowed schools to choose employees other than those<br />

who had previously been employed as vice-principals. Like Williams, Breslin v. School<br />

Community of Quincy (1985 Mass. App.) presented another case where administrators<br />

mistakenly sought appointment to newly created administrative positions that were strikingly<br />

similar to the previously employed ones. Once again, the schools succeeded because the courts<br />

agreed that the positions were different from the former positions insomuch that in Breslin the<br />

new positions were promotional and carried greater prestige. Thus, Breslin et al. were not<br />

entitled to appointment in positions that were technically new and promotions over their<br />

previously held positions. Finally, administrators did win in part one case where appointments to<br />

newly created positions were contested, but it was a hollow victory. In State ex rel. Haak v.<br />

Board of Education (1985 Minn.), Haak et al. contested that they should have been appointed to<br />

newly created positions. Once again, the administrator’s argument was rebuffed by the school<br />

system because the new positions were presented as higher ranking than the discontinued<br />

positions. However, neither the school system nor the administrators succeeded on this<br />

argument, for the case was remanded for further information gathering. From these cases, it is<br />

clear that following a period of reduction in force an appointment to a newly created<br />

administrative position is not guaranteed if the school system can show that the position is in<br />

some way different either by requiring less or greater qualifications.<br />

320

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!