ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Case Year State Action PP Litigative Claim
Ray v.
Birmingham
City Bd. of
Educ.
Kelly v. Bd. of
Educ.
State ex rel.
Smith v.
Etheridge
Klein v. Bd. of
Educ.
State ex rel.
Quiring v. Bd.
of Educ.
Christensen v.
Kingston School
Comm.
1988 AL T N/A Ray argued due process violations under § 1983
after his termination due to district realignment. The
case was remanded for new hearing.
1988 IL R E Kelly and Harvey had been normal school principals
but became itinerant fill-in administrators for their
district. Both alleged due process violations against
the district for not providing reasons for their initial
transfers and breach of contract for loss in salary.
1992 OH R SPLIT This case was fraught with claims that were
consolidated from numerous cases following a
district realignment. The basis of the argument was
that the district illegally conducted a reduction in
force by reassigning and non-renewing over fifty
administrators. Smith’s case stood out from the rest
because he argued that his actual job was not what
was recorded on his “written” contract thereby
barring him from reassignment.
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
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.
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.
Because district realignment is closely tied to reduction in force, 8 of the 14 cases
included in Table 21 were also displayed in Table 17. Therefore, two issues discussed in the
analysis following Table 17, which were seniority versus performance in determining
reassignments following reduction in force and inappropriate “bumping” procedures during and
following reduction in force, are also present in Table 21. There are, however, two issues in the
analysis of Table 21 that were not as prevalent in Table 17. The first is salary maintenance.
325