ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Tenure violations. Three distinct issues for administrative failure on tenure claims were clearly defined. First, administrators failed on tenure claims because they simply did not possess tenure. In these cases, the administrator was denied tenure due to the amount of time spent in the district. That is to say that those administrators were still probationary employees. Second, administrators also mistakenly claimed property interests in retaining their job while not having administrative tenure. Only tenure privileges confer property interests. Third, administrators incorrectly claimed tenure protections such as evidentiary hearings, remediation periods, and so on that were extended to teachers but not administrators. Tenure protections, as evidenced in Table 61, were not often mistaken by the school systems. Breach of contract. The researcher was able to determine that four issues were evident in the cases that involved breach of contract claims. The first issue centered on administrators claiming breaches of contract for changes in their position due to employment actions. Within these cases, the administrator was not restored to his or her administrative position for some reason or another and claimed that their contract mandated such a return. Second, the next area of breach claims centered on procedural issues that were improperly handled during the employment action. Most of these claims also were classified as due process violations. Third, like the issue within due process--unfulfilled requirement--administrators claimed that the party executing their employment action was not vested with the power to do so. The fourth and final issue related by administrator was that certain contracts did not allow for changes in employment mid-term without just cause. 411
Outcomes--Identifying Information 2. What were the outcomes of court cases about adverse employment actions against school administrators, in the years of 1981 through 2010? Of the 125 cases explicated, there were 3 cases (2%) where no decision was given and the cases were remanded for re-hearing. There were 19 cases (15%) where the courts found in part for the employee and in part for the school system. There were 30 cases (24%) where the courts found for the employee in the adverse action litigation. Lastly, there were 73 cases (58%) where the court found for the school system. Of the 125 cases explicated, the outcomes of cases regarding demotions favored school systems, as they won 2 of the 4 cases and held spilt decisions with the other 2 cases. The outcomes of cases regarding suspensions favored the school system 80% of the time (4/5 cases). The administrator prevailed in the 1 remaining case. The outcomes of cases regarding non- renewals favored the school system 75% of the time (18/24 cases). The administrator prevailed in 3 of the 6 cases, and the other 3 were split decisions. The outcomes of the cases regarding reassignments favored schools 50% of the time (24/48 cases). The administrator prevailed in 16 of the 24 remaining cases, and the other 7 cases were split decisions, while the 1 remaining case was remanded for new hearing. The outcomes of the cases regarding terminations favored schools 57% of the time (25/44 cases). The administrator prevailed in 10 of the 19 remaining cases, and the other 7 cases were split decisions, while the 2 remaining cases were remanded for a new hearing. 412
Page 1 and 2:
ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBL
Page 3 and 4:
ABSTRACT The purpose of this resear
Page 5 and 6:
Finally, I can never express my app
Page 7 and 8:
III METHODOLOGY ...................
Page 9 and 10:
V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMME
Page 11 and 12:
21 District Realignment with Litiga
Page 13 and 14:
LIST OF FIGURES 1 Creswell’s Data
Page 15 and 16:
Since 1981, there have been no less
Page 17 and 18:
Research Questions The research que
Page 19 and 20:
Affirm: (1) to assert as true or fa
Page 21 and 22:
Estoppel: (1) a bar to the use of c
Page 23 and 24:
Transfer: (1) a conveyance of a rig
Page 25 and 26:
Catchings-Owens, 2000; Harris, 2011
Page 27 and 28:
administrators very often feel that
Page 29 and 30:
number of other incendiary titles.
Page 31 and 32:
significantly beyond those of teach
Page 33 and 34:
Much like his previous category, Sa
Page 35 and 36:
indicative of future administrative
Page 37 and 38:
in improving poor administrators is
Page 39 and 40:
acknowledge those meetings as notic
Page 41 and 42:
primary cause for adverse actions w
Page 43 and 44:
school administrators (Davis, 1998;
Page 45 and 46:
4. What principles to guide the pra
Page 47 and 48:
ever emp ploys them. This T alterat
Page 49 and 50:
First, the researcher collects data
Page 51 and 52:
Summary In summary, this chapter pr
Page 53 and 54:
was not maintained at the level tha
Page 55 and 56:
Dr. Burger and the board to which M
Page 57 and 58:
eassignment/reassignment of adminis
Page 59 and 60:
Holding: The court held that § 125
Page 61 and 62:
Because the finding was affirmed, t
Page 63 and 64:
Key Facts: Forrest E. Stafford was
Page 65 and 66:
Key Facts: Joseph Lyznicki was prin
Page 67 and 68:
Citation: Totten v. Board of Educat
Page 69 and 70:
performance and withholding the rai
Page 71 and 72:
Citation: Rossi v. Board of Educati
Page 73 and 74:
extra time and wages during the lit
Page 75 and 76:
Holding: The court held that Taylor
Page 77 and 78:
presented. In the case of Ledew, it
Page 79 and 80:
SDCL 15-6-52(a) provides the court
Page 81 and 82:
Issues: (1) Did the board illegally
Page 83 and 84:
his current or former position. Osb
Page 85 and 86:
middle school and Grade 9 up to hig
Page 87 and 88:
Reasoning: The board empowered the
Page 89 and 90:
and torture” the Harvey’s. This
Page 91 and 92:
similar position assuming that all
Page 93 and 94:
Key Facts: During the 1981-1982 sch
Page 95 and 96:
Disposition: The trial court’s ru
Page 97 and 98:
Key Facts: Benson was the principal
Page 99 and 100:
Finally, the cross claim from the d
Page 101 and 102:
Foster for each month that he worke
Page 103 and 104:
Roughly two weeks later and after a
Page 105 and 106:
the composite evidence that all ind
Page 107 and 108:
halted Bill’s speech at this poin
Page 109 and 110:
Disposition: The district court rul
Page 111 and 112:
Following the 1981-1982 school year
Page 113 and 114:
Reasoning: The court theorized that
Page 115 and 116:
state board of education. Based on
Page 117 and 118:
non-renewal for cause was valid. Th
Page 119 and 120:
earing on his non-renewal. Second,
Page 121 and 122:
The board further maintained that W
Page 123 and 124:
As to the award of back pay, the bo
Page 125 and 126:
documentation of Finance Director M
Page 127 and 128:
proper hearing was conducted he wou
Page 129 and 130:
Teachers move to principalships whe
Page 131 and 132:
senior high school and Gilbert assu
Page 133 and 134:
Daury put a student in a strangleho
Page 135 and 136:
school board president, received re
Page 137 and 138:
to numerous schools as principal an
Page 139 and 140:
The district court found that Roger
Page 141 and 142:
(3) Was there sufficient evidence t
Page 143 and 144:
Reasoning: The court reasoned that
Page 145 and 146:
Issues: (1) Did Preston Pierce have
Page 147 and 148:
tenured teacher and assume a teachi
Page 149 and 150:
Holding: The Missouri Court of Appe
Page 151 and 152:
employee. Fifth, written notice of
Page 153 and 154:
1992 Citation: Carrillo v. Rostro,
Page 155 and 156:
expecting, Terry openly admonished
Page 157 and 158:
Smith filed in the court of appeals
Page 159 and 160:
R.C. 3319.02 did not require boards
Page 161 and 162:
Issues: (1) Despite the sheer bread
Page 163 and 164:
for rehearing. Holding: The court h
Page 165 and 166:
current contract. Her contention wa
Page 167 and 168:
Citation: McCormack v. Maplewood-Ri
Page 169 and 170:
Finally, McCormack accused M-RHSD w
Page 171 and 172:
5451. If administrators were provid
Page 173 and 174:
employment elsewhere to no avail. I
Page 175 and 176:
Key Facts: Knox, principal of Wingf
Page 177 and 178:
1998 Citation: Caston School Corpor
Page 179 and 180:
The search was in direct violation
Page 181 and 182:
School divided into two separate bu
Page 183 and 184:
day with recess and lunch duty. She
Page 185 and 186:
funds. Bradshaw would later issue t
Page 187 and 188:
Holding: The court held that Downin
Page 189 and 190:
only board members present with Moy
Page 191 and 192:
noted that none of these reasons ha
Page 193 and 194:
American, prior to Black’s reassi
Page 195 and 196:
questions or concerns regarding sex
Page 197 and 198:
The board vested the responsibiliti
Page 199 and 200:
policymaker. The court further gran
Page 201 and 202:
On April 26, 1999, Graham filed a g
Page 203 and 204:
Principal’s Performance Review (P
Page 205 and 206:
Issues: (1) Did the school district
Page 207 and 208:
way evidentially rebutted the asser
Page 209 and 210:
placed in Brown’s personnel file,
Page 211 and 212:
Hinckley argued that she was a more
Page 213 and 214:
Oliver sued for over $230,000 in co
Page 215 and 216:
for cause to have been correct and
Page 217 and 218:
In August, Lassiter met with Sawyer
Page 219 and 220:
Everson relied on the point that sh
Page 221 and 222:
Reasoning: First, it is of importan
Page 223 and 224:
Reasoning: First, R.C. 3319.11(B) r
Page 225 and 226:
school computer during school hours
Page 227 and 228:
no evidence greater than hearsay. M
Page 229 and 230:
Issues: (1) Did Patten suffer from
Page 231 and 232:
Reasoning: The board did terminate
Page 233 and 234:
clique because of her race. The dis
Page 235 and 236:
Specifically, the court noted that
Page 237 and 238:
improved the rating to letter C. Ho
Page 239 and 240:
D’Angelo’s associational claim
Page 241 and 242:
Next, Sanders argued that she had b
Page 243 and 244:
Issues: (1) Did Fiero suffer First
Page 245 and 246:
Holding: The court held that Moore
Page 247 and 248:
The first incident occurred in a cl
Page 249 and 250:
oard elected to reassign Herrera to
Page 251 and 252:
Key Facts: In December of 2001, Her
Page 253 and 254:
In February 2006, Gepford visited M
Page 255 and 256:
current case had to be strikingly s
Page 257 and 258:
also. Following the enactment of th
Page 259 and 260:
2010 Citation: McFerren v. Farrell
Page 261 and 262:
Third, the court deduced that McFer
Page 263 and 264:
during the 2006-2007 school year he
Page 265 and 266:
Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). De
Page 267 and 268:
actions regarding financial matters
Page 269 and 270:
manager. In December 2006, Soroka c
Page 271 and 272:
y sufficient evidence, and that Cor
Page 273 and 274:
they placed Heutzenroeder on perfor
Page 275 and 276:
further clarified that Heutzenroede
Page 277 and 278:
traffic stops with females. Flores
Page 279 and 280:
teacher, Flores was unable to conne
Page 281 and 282:
The latter event was of a more seri
Page 283 and 284:
action because Herbert suffered a
Page 285 and 286:
quantitative breakdown of the infor
Page 287 and 288:
Case Year State Action PP Litigativ
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Case Year State Action PP Desoto Co
Page 301 and 302:
Case Year State Action PP Brandt v.
Page 303 and 304:
Of the five cases, two common threa
Page 305 and 306:
Case Year State Action PP Martinek
Page 307 and 308:
each of these cases, the school sys
Page 309 and 310:
eassignment cases were tied to empl
Page 311 and 312:
Case Year State Action PP Patten v.
Page 313 and 314:
Case Year State Action PP Sweeney v
Page 315 and 316:
Administrators in 7 of the 19 cases
Page 317 and 318:
Table 11 Prevailing Party--Employee
Page 319 and 320:
Table 12 Prevailing Party--School C
Page 321 and 322:
documentation of employee actions s
Page 323 and 324:
Table 13 State Count Master Case Ye
Page 325 and 326:
Case Year State Action PP O’Dea v
Page 327 and 328:
Table 15 State Count--Pennsylvania
Page 329 and 330:
argument failed because New York on
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
In Williams v. Seattle School Distr
Page 335 and 336:
had employed the administrator with
Page 337 and 338:
Three other cases were split in par
Page 339 and 340:
Table 22 District Realignment--Sala
Page 341 and 342:
Table 24 Constructive Discharges wi
Page 343 and 344:
Table 26 Constructive Discharges--I
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
In Reed v. Rolla 31 Public School D
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
eceived numerous warnings over exte
Page 357 and 358:
physical altercation with a student
Page 359 and 360:
Table 34 Failed Leadership--Insubor
Page 361 and 362:
Table 35 Failed Leadership--Incompe
Page 363 and 364:
falsification of documents (2), per
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Outlandish behaviors--physical alte
Page 369 and 370:
Rabon v. Bryan County Board of Educ
Page 371 and 372:
Kirschling v. Lake Forest School Di
Page 373 and 374: Case Year State Action PP Litigativ
Page 375 and 376: This category reiterated the middle
Page 377 and 378: intelligence. However, dissent over
Page 379 and 380: Two cases displayed strife between
Page 381 and 382: skills are of the utmost importance
Page 383 and 384: Table 47 Upstanding Behavior--Schoo
Page 389 and 390: As it was noted before, five issues
Page 391 and 392: It was explained earlier that the o
Page 393 and 394: administrators violated due process
Page 395 and 396: In Snipes v. McAndrew, (1984 S.C.),
Page 399 and 400: speech is not protected by the Firs
Page 401 and 402: In Lewis v. Harrison School Distric
Page 405 and 406: statutes in Klein v. Board of Educa
Page 407 and 408: eassigned, which was allowed per th
Page 411 and 412: Botti claimed that he was never pro
Page 413 and 414: CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
Page 415 and 416: had been either incorrectly carried
Page 417 and 418: First, in racial discrimination cla
Page 419 and 420: Fourth, insubordination was the nex
Page 421 and 422: have to be an act; it could simply
Page 423: failure to inform administrators in
Page 427 and 428: Outlandish behavior. Of the 18 outl
Page 429 and 430: There was a case upswing beginning
Page 431 and 432: present in these cases with demotio
Page 433 and 434: supposed insulated speech. The adve
Page 435 and 436: 4. An administrator who possesses t
Page 437 and 438: 17. District-level administrators f
Page 439 and 440: 29. A district/board’s proffered
Page 441 and 442: Second, Sacken (1996) and Davis (19
Page 443 and 444: REFERENCES Cambron-McCabe, N. H., M
Page 445: Price, H. (2010). Does No Child Lef
show all

ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?