ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

that teachers were not providing the results he expected. This style of communication destroyed
the support of his followers.
Interpersonal strife was a two-way street. Administrators also suffered with problems
within interpersonal relationships with superiors who helped spur employment actions. This
point, when considered with the synthesis of Table 42, expounds the notion that school
administrators are middle managers. The balancing of relationships that must be achieved
between followers and superiors is a truly delicate measure to achieve. There were six cases,
where the interpersonal strife between administrators and superiors (principals, superintendents,
and/or school boards), that are identified in Table 43.
Table 43
Interpersonal Strife--Failed Relationships with Superiors
Case Year State Action PP
Carrillo v. Rostro 1992 NM NR SPLIT
Hinson v. Clinch Co. Bd. of Educ. 2000 GA R E
Ulichny v. Merton Comm. School Dist. 2000 WI R S
Graham v. Putnam Co. Bd. of Educ. 2002 WV S S
Finch v. Fort Bend Ind. School Dist. 2003 TX R S
Corbett v. Duering 2010 WV T S
The strained relationships identified in Table 43 fell into three areas: strife with the principal,
strife with the superintendent, and strife with the board.
There was one case where the strife was between an assistant principal and her principal.
In Graham v. Putnam County Board of Education (2002 W. Va.), Graham insubordinately failed
to report to duties when requested by the principal and exhibited a great level of disrespect to the
principal in front of other school employees.
365