ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

As it was noted before, five issues were drawn from the cases where school
administrators made due process violation claims. The first cause put forth by the administrators
in this research study was violations of property and/or liberty interests. Eleven cases were
identified as making specific claims of denied property interests (job maintenance) or liberty
interests (defamation of character).
Table 49
Due Process--Property and/or Liberty Interest Claims
Case Year State Action PP
Lyznicki, v. Bd. of Educ. School Dist. 167 1983 IL R S
Ray v. Birmingham City Bd. of Educ. 1988 AL T N/A
Pierce v. Engle 1989 KS NR S
McCormack v. Maplewood-Richmond Heights School Dist. Bd. 1996 MO T S
of Educ.
Ulichny v. Merton Comm. School Dist. 2000 WI R S
State ex rel. Quiring v. Bd. of Educ. 2001 MN R S
Howard v. Columbia Pub. School Dist. 2004 MO NR S
Lassiter v. Topeka Unified School Dist. 2004 KS R S
Midlam v. Greenville City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. 2005 OH NR SPLIT
Castillo v. Hobbs Municipal School Bd. 2009 NM NR S
Herrera v. Union No. 39 School Dist. 2009 VT T S
After review of Table 49, it is easy to see that schools do not often lose on these claims,
as only one case presented even a partial success to the administrator’s claim. That case, Midlam
v. Greenville City School District Board of Education (2005 Ohio App.), was a split decision
where Midlam won on her due process claim that she was entitled to continuing contract status,
but lost as her claim of not being provided a remediation period was proven false.
The other property and liberty interest claims were not as rewarding to the administrators.
In Lyznicki, v. Board of Education, School District 167 (1983 U.S. App.), Lyznicki’s property
376