ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Once again, the point remains that a pre-employment action meeting is a required step that must
be taken by the school systems and in accordance with all time constraints.
Table 50 detailed cases of due process violations where administrators claimed that they
were in some capacity denied a pre-employment action hearing. Table 51 displays eight cases
where the administrator claimed that the meeting held was not in accordance with due process
requirements.
Table 51
Due Process--Improper Pre-Employment Action Meeting Held
Case Year State Action PP
Desoto Co. School Bd. v. Garrett 1987 MS NR E
Kelly v. Bd. of Educ. 1988 IL R E
Perry v. Houston Ind. School Dist. 1995 TX R S
Brown v. Bd. of Educ. 1996 KS NR S
Brandt v. Cortines 1997 NY T S
Finch v. Fort Bend Ind. School Dist. 2003 TX R S
Oliver v. Lee Co. School Dist. 2004 GA T S
Simpson v. Holmes Co .Bd. of Educ. 2009 MS T S
The two cases in which employees prevailed in Table 51 were Desoto County School
Board v. Garrett (1987 Miss.), and Kelly v. Board of Education (1988 Ill. App.). In Desoto,
Garrett and Payette were provided with a meeting, but were denied the ability to question
witnesses or present evidence to rebuff the charges against them. This was a violation of the due
process requirements of Mississippi. In Kelly v. Board of Education (1988 Ill. App.), Kelly and
Harvey both suffered pay loss following a pay scale realignment in which both argued that they
were not provided with a proper pre-employment action hearing. They were able to prove in
Kelly that their initial employment change from traditional administrators to itinerant
379