ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

failure to inform administrators in a prescribed timeframe, and the executor of the employment
action was not vested with the power to make such a determination.
Fifth, a number of administrators claimed that they were entitled to evidentiary hearings
but were not provided with one. To receive an evidentiary hearing in most instances, an
administrator must have exhausted almost all prior grievance avenues as they are expensive
undertakings and not guaranteed to administrators. More often, evidentiary hearings are due
process protections for tenured teachers, not contractually employed administrators.
First Amendment claims. Administrators claimed that their First Amendment rights were
violated as school systems had retaliated against them for speech which the administrators
asserted was of a public concern. First, administrators made claims of protected speech that were
actually examples of them speaking as school officials. Therefore, the speech was not protected
as it was part of their job and therefore not insulated language.
Second, speech that involved personal matters, not ones of a public concern, was asserted
as being First Amendment violations. Speech surrounding the personal employment of a school
administrator is not protected by the First Amendment. First Amendment claims until 2006
hinged on the ability of the administrator to prove that his/her speech was of a public concern,
carried out as a citizen--not a school official--given in temporal proximity of the adverse
employment action, and not so incendiary as to impede the continued working relationship of the
school and the administrator. Following 2006, speech of a public official that is of a public
concern was not seen as insulated language due to Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006 U.S. Sup.).
410