ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

In Lewis v. Harrison School District No. 1 (1986 U.S. App.), Lewis was able to
successfully prove that his non-renewal was directly linked to his speech at a school board
meeting where a large number of community members had come to protest their objection to
Lewis’s wife (a teacher and coach at the same school as Lewis) being transferred to another
school in the district. Lewis spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern, which insulated his
speech. Like Lewis, Ratliff spoke out against the poor work conditions and lack of trust with
school system employees and the school board in Ratliff v. Wellington Exempted Village Schools
Board of Education (1987 U.S. App.). Once again, the determinant was that the speech was of a
public concern and he was able to show that his non-renewal was directly linked to his speech.
School administrators, until 2006, were able to prevail on First Amendment claims when they
spoke as citizens on matters of public concern and could show a temporal proximity to the
speech and the adverse employment action suffered. However, following Garcetti v. Ceballos
(2006 U.S. Sup.), speech made that was of a public concern was no longer insulated language.
That language was then subject to protection under state and federal whistleblower laws.
Tenure violations. Table 58 reveals that school systems properly balance the procedural
safeguards that administrators with tenure (administrative or teacher) possess in 67% (16) of the
cases litigated over a 30-year period. Tenure claims in the case sample constituted 19% (24
cases) of the entire body. In the 5 instances where the administrator prevailed on a tenure claim,
each case bore distinguishing characteristics. For example, in Pasqua v. LaFourche Parish
School Board (1981 La. App.), the administrator’s salary was not properly maintained following
reassignment. Moreover, in Cowan v. Board of Education (1984 N.Y. Misc.), Cowan was
reassigned to a tenure area that he was not certified to hold.
388