ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Next, administrators claimed that their reassignment or termination due to reduction in
force was improper because the school system determined the order of “cuts” on performance
and not seniority.
Table 19
Reduction in Force--Performance over Seniority
Case Year State Action PP
In the Matter of Waterloo Comm. School Dist. and Concerning
Gowans
1983 IA T SPLIT
In re Appeal of Cowden 1984 PA R E
Gibbons v. New Castle Area School Dist. 1985 PA R E
Abington School Dist. v. Pacropis 1986 PA R E
Following review of In the Matter of Waterloo Community School District and
Concerning William J. Gowans, (1983 Iowa Sup.), the researcher was able to show that Gowans
easily demonstrated that the Waterloo School District based his termination on performance of
administrators because the system stated so in his letter of notice. This was a violation because
the school system was statutorily bound to offer reasons to prove that the decision was not
arbitrary and/or capricious. Because Waterloo offered no reasons, they had violated the
reduction-in-force policy. The next three cases all came from Pennsylvania and cited § 1125.1(c)
of the Public School Code, which stipulated that staff realignment be based solely on seniority.
In Appeal of Bernard E. Cowden etc. Moon Area School District (1984 Pa. Commw.), Cowden
proved that the district terminated him based on professional evaluations. Cowden had scored
lower than all of his administrative counterparts. Therefore, Cowden was entitled to
reinstatement as a school administrator. Gibbons reiterated the same point--1125.1(c)--in
Gibbons v. New Castle Area School District (1985 Pa. Commw.), when he proved that the board
321