ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Sexual malfeasance by school administrators varied greatly in details, but they arose in
litigation for one particular reason. The charge of sexual malfeasance undermined the
administrator to effectively lead teachers and students. However, school systems had to
accurately determine that the sexual activity--whatever it may have been--dramatically affected
or would affect the job performance of the administrator to justify adverse employment actions.
Much like sexual malfeasance, sexual harassment cases were identified and the impact on
the job performance of the administrator was critical in the court’s decision making when
considering the litigation.
Table 40
Outlandish Behaviors--Sexual Harassment
Case Year State Action PP
Bd. of Educ. of Alamogordo Pub. Schools Dist. No.. 1 v. Jennings 1982 NM T E
Kirschling v. Lake Forest School Dist. 1988 DE T E
Reed v. Rolla 31 Pub. School Dist. 2005 MO NR S
Flores v. Von Kleist 2010 CA T S
Murphy v. City of Aventura 2010 FL T S
Like Herbert, Board of Education of Alamogordo Public Schools District No. 1, v.
Jennings (1982 N.M. App.) was a case where the actions of the administrator were judged more
on moral impact rather than the impact on Jennings’ ability to work with others productively.
The school board failed to prove that the sexual harassment charge by the secretary with whom
he had a sexual relationship was not proof that his work performance was sub-standard.
Moreover, the board was required by state law to consider sexual harassment as a work
impediment, not an immoral act, and to provide Jennings with a remediation prior to termination.
357