15.08.2013 Views

ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Rabon v. Bryan County Board of Education (1985 Ga. App.) was discussed at length<br />

following Table 35. Rabon had made sexual remarks about teachers to other teachers and was<br />

terminated for incompetence because, as the board asserted, he was no longer able to lead a<br />

school due to the tarnishing of his reputation. Rabon’s remarks were his undoing because of the<br />

undermining power the remarks exercised on his ability to lead; Castillo’s actions, however,<br />

would be his undoing, or more precisely, his wife’s actions would be his undoing.<br />

In Castillo v. Hobbs Municipal School Board (2009 U.S. App.), Castillo’s contract was<br />

non-renewed after the school board was provided a phone conversation between Castillo and his<br />

secretary that was sexually explicit in nature and that Castillo’s wife had recorded. The board<br />

chose to transfer his secretary out of fear of sexual harassment charges arising and to non-renew<br />

his administrative contract. The board did, however, offer him a teaching contract in accordance<br />

with his tenured status as a teacher. Unlike Rabon, Castillo’s seemingly private conversation still<br />

led to his non-renewal because of the possibility of future litigation due to the sexual relationship<br />

between him and his secretary.<br />

Herbert’s case was significantly different from the others listed in Table 39. Herbert was<br />

an unmarried assistant principal who became pregnant with a school custodian’s child. Herbert’s<br />

strained interpersonal skills, pregnancy out of wedlock, and her consistent denial and dishonesty<br />

about the nature of the relationship that led to her pregnancy combined to create a great deal of<br />

unrest in the local school community. However, Herbert’s on-job performance was never<br />

affected by her pregnancy. Her colleagues’ attitudes and beliefs and the board’s decision to<br />

demote her were seen as gender discrimination. Some parents suggested that Herbert was setting<br />

a poor example for the students, but her performance on evaluations showed otherwise, until the<br />

months immediately following the announcement of her pregnancy.<br />

356

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!