ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

administrator following a period of reduction in force where her school moved from being a K-6
school to a K-12 school because she was not certified to be a K-12 principal (Hinckley v. School
Board of Independent School District No. 2167 (2004 Minn. App.)). With Holmes v. Board of
Trustees of School District Nos. 4, 47, and 2, 243 (1990 Mont.), Holmes successfully
demonstrated that the board illegally retracted an offer to “bump” a less senior employee
because Holmes did not physically possess documentation of appropriate certification.
Moreover, Klein successfully showed that his rights to remain a school administrator could not
be abrogated by the board’s right to appoint a superintendent, in Klein v. Board of Education
(1993 Minn. App.). Citing the same statute as in Klein, Minn. Stat. § 125.17, subd.11 (198),
which requires that the seniority of principals be determined from the date of employment in a
given district rather than their date of employment as a principal, allowed McManus to have his
reassignment overturned, in McManus v. Independent School District No. 625 (1982 Minn.
App.). In State ex rel. Quiring v. Board of Education (2001 Minn. App.), Quiring theorized that
her job was not truly terminated because many of her responsibilities were bestowed on other
positions; this theory was ill-taken as the school system could not be required to abolish
necessary duties because a job was abolished for fiscal exigency.
District realignment. Table 21 displays 14 cases where school administrators identified
district realignment as a central cause in their adverse employment action litigation. Of these 14
cases, 8 also cited reduction in force as another school action spurring litigation. Only 2
employment actions occurred in these cases, 2 terminations and 12 reassignments. In 6 of the
cases, the administrator (E) prevailed on his/her claim, while in 4 the school system prevailed.
323