ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Employee Actions
The next section of tables will explore actions on the part of the administrators that,
according to the school systems, instigated the adverse employment actions taken and ultimately
the litigation that followed. All cases are categorized under one or more of the following
designations: failed leadership, outlandish behavior, interpersonal strife, and upstanding
behavior.
Failed leadership. Table 30 presents a wealth of data about the actions of administrators
that schools have identified as being the issue at the root of adverse employment actions and that
the researcher has qualified as “failed leadership.” These actions will be broken down into
further categories and tables thereafter.
Table 30
Failed Leadership with Litigative Claim
Case Year State Action PP Litigative Claim
Lomas v. Bd. of
School Dir. of
Northwestern
Lehigh School Dist.
Totten v. Bd. of
Educ. of the Co. of
Mingo
LeGalley v. Bronson
Comm. Schools
Crossland v.
Bensalem Township
School Dist.
1982 PA R S Lomas’ failed leadership was marked by extreme
faculty conflict and interpersonal strife over her
new reading program and claimed that her
reassignment was a demotion and violated her
335
due process protections.
1983 WV S E Totten contended that his suspension for failed
leadership based on his insubordination was
improper.
1983 MI T S LeGalley claimed that the district constructively
discharged him by denying pay raises for two
years due to his failed leadership.
1983 PA T S Crossland argued that his termination for failed
leadership based on incompetency and
negligence was improper because the school
district failed to show that his behaviors were
persistent and that the district did not evaluate his
work properly.
(table continues)