ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Kirschling v. Lake Forest School District (1988 U.S. Dist.) possessed a very similar
outcome to Board of Education of Alamogordo Public Schools District No. 1, v. Jennings (1982
N.M. App.). A technicality served as a reprieve for Kirschling’s improprieties. Kirschling had a
contract offer from a school district rescinded, upon the district learning that he had been
disciplined for multiple sexual harassment charges in his last job setting. This contract
withdrawal was done without any pre-termination meetings which, as the court ruled, violated
the due process expectations that Kirschling could expect to receive.
In Reed v. Rolla 31 Public School District (2005 U.S. Dist.) and Flores v. Von Kleist
(2010 U.S. Dist.), two administrators were terminated for their persistent sexual harassment of
colleagues. Reed, who had participated in an affair with a co-worker, was also shown to have
inappropriately touched male workers while she served as principal. Moreover, she also used
school email, resources, and work time to sexually pursue other partners. Flores had habitually
sexually harassed student teachers and secretaries during his disjointed teaching and
administrative career, that was broken by time spent serving in Afghanistan in the Army. Both
Reed and Flores fought the employment action levied against them and lost because, as it was
shown in Table 38, their work performance was undeniably marred by their actions.
Sexual improprieties such as malfeasance and/or harassment are not judged on the
intentions of the offending party, but rather the impact of the impropriety on the party that is
offended. If the school system had followed proper protocol and could show that the sexual
impropriety had negatively impacted the administrator’s past performance or would seriously
impair the administrator’s future performance, then employment actions levied by the school
system were more likely to stand up in court.
358