ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Outcomes--School Action Issues Reduction in force. Of the 24 reduction in force claims litigated, administrators prevailed in 9 cases (38%). Schools prevailed in 8 cases (33%), and 7 cases were split decisions (28%). District realignment. Of the 14 district realignment claims litigated, administrators prevailed in 6 cases (43%). Schools prevailed in 4 cases (29%), and 3 cases were split decisions (21%). One case was remanded for rehearing (7%). Constructive discharges. Of the 6 constructive discharge claims litigated, administrators prevailed in 1 case (17%). Schools prevailed in 5 cases (83%) Discrimination. Of the 11 discrimination claims litigated, administrators prevailed in 1 case (9%). Schools prevailed in 7 cases (64%), and 3 cases were split decisions (27%). Outcomes--Employee Action Issues Failed leadership. Of the 41 failed leadership claims litigated, administrators prevailed in 7 cases (17%). Schools prevailed in 30 cases (73%), and 3 cases were split decisions (7%). One case was remanded for rehearing (2%). Interpersonal strife. Of the 21 interpersonal strife claims litigated, administrators prevailed in 3 cases (14%). Schools prevailed in 14 cases (67%) and 4 cases were split decisions (19%). 413
Outlandish behavior. Of the 18 outlandish behavior claims litigated, administrators prevailed in 4 cases (22%). Schools prevailed in 11 cases (61%), and 3 cases were split decisions (17%). Upstanding behaviors. Of the 5 upstanding behavior claims litigated, administrators prevailed in 3 cases (60%). Schools prevailed in 2 cases (40%). Outcomes--Employee Protection Issues Due process. Of the 41 due process claims litigated, administrators prevailed in 6 cases (15%). Schools prevailed in 27 cases (66%), and 7 cases were split decisions (17%). One case was remanded for rehearing (2%). First Amendment claims. Of the 19 First Amendment claims litigated, administrators prevailed in 2 cases (10%). Schools prevailed in 11 cases (58%). Six cases were split decisions (32%). Tenure violations. Of the 24 tenure violation claims litigated, administrators prevailed in 5 cases (21%). Schools prevailed in 16 cases (66%). Two cases were split decisions (8%), and 1 case was remanded for rehearing (4%). Breach of contract. Of the 15 breach of contract claims litigated, administrators prevailed in five cases (33%). Schools prevailed in six cases (40%). Four cases were split decisions (27%). 414
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:
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 385 and 386: Case Year State Action PP Litigativ
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 and 424: failure to inform administrators in
Page 425: Outcomes--Identifying Information 2
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?