ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

had employed the administrator with the fifth most seniority over Gibbons who had the third
most seniority. Furthermore, in Abington School District v. Pacropis (1986 Pa. Commw.),
Pacropis successfully showed that following the termination of his job due to reduction in force
the school system employed an assistant principal with fewer years of experience in a position
that Pacropis was qualified to fill. Clearly, seniority, not performance, was the correct
determinant for reassignment in these cases.
Finally, the largest number of claims by administrators who legally contested reduction in
force drawn from Table 17 were claims that “bumping” procedures had been either incorrectly
carried out or not carried out at all. The six cases identified in Table 17 are shown below in Table
20.
Table 20
Reduction in Force--Improper “Bumping” Procedures
Case Year State Action PP
McManus v. Ind. School Dist. No. 625 1982 MN R E
Mohn v. Ind. School Dist. 1987 MN R S
Holmes v. Bd. of Trustees of School Dist. 1990 MT T E
Klein v. Bd. of Educ. 1993 MN R E
State ex rel. Quiring v. Bd. of Educ. 2001 MN R S
Hinckley v. School Bd. of Ind. School Dist. 2004 MN T S
Moreover, of the six cases that argued incorrect “bumping” during reduction in force, five also
claimed tenure violations and protections. In Mohn v. Independent School District (1987 Minn.
App.), Mohn failed to prove that he should have bumped an elementary school principal when
two school systems consolidated to share the elementary and secondary educational services.
Similarly, Hinckley failed to demonstrate that she should have bumped a less-tenured
322