ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Table 54
First Amendment Violations with Litigative Claim
Case Year State Action PP Litigative Claim
Dalton City Bd.
of Educ. v.
Smith
Lewis v.
Harrison School
Dist. No. 1
Hatcher v. Bd.
of Pub. Educ.
Ratliff v.
Wellington
Exempted
Village Schools
Bd. of Educ.
Carrillo v.
Rostro
Peterson v.
Minidoka Co.
School Dist.
Bradshaw v.
Pittsburg Ind.
School Dist.
Black v.
Columbus Pub.
Schools
1986 GA NR S Smith argued that his non-renewal was carried out
due to protected political activities and the action
was a matter of local controversy and a First
Amendment violation.
1986 AR NR E Lewis claimed that the district violated his First
Amendment rights by not renewing his contract for a
speech at a board meeting.
1987 GA R SPLIT Hatcher was reassigned to a librarian position due to
a reduction in force and district realignment. Hatcher
argued that her First Amendment rights were violated
because she was denied vacant administrative jobs
for attending rallies to keep her school open.
1987 OH NR SPLIT Ratliff alleged that his non-renewal was a retaliation
for his comments about the school board and thus a
First Amendment violation.
1992 NM NR SPLIT Carrillo claimed that her contract was non-renewed
because of her interpersonal demeanor during a
speech she made at a board meeting which violated
her First Amendment rights.
1997 ID T SPLIT Peterson was reassigned to a teaching position and
eventually terminated for undermining the public’s
confidence in his school based on his decision to
home school his twelve children for religious
purposes. Peterson argued that this action violated,
among other things, his freedom of religion, free
speech, and due process safeguards.
2000 PA R S Bradshaw alleged that her reassignment was a
retaliatory move and a First Amendment violation
because she responded to notice of her pending
reassignment with letters to the board,
superintendent, and local media claiming that the
school system had failed to support her during
allegations about the mismanagement and misuse of
funds at her school.
2000 OH R SPLIT Black argued that she was racially discriminated
against and that her reassignment violated her First,
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and was
retaliation for her EEOC claim where she reported
her supervisor’s (principal) assumed extra-marital
affair where sexual activity was occurring on school
grounds during school hours.
(table continues)
383