ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

4. What principles to guide the practice of school administrators and district-level
administrators can be discerned from adverse employment actions against school administrators,
in the years of 1981 through 2010?
This research study, which was conducted through explication of 125 litigated cases,
provides 37 guiding principles for school administrators and boards to consider when confronted
with an adverse employment action prior to litigation. It is worth noting that all employment
actions are subject to varying degrees of control and stipulations from local and state agencies;
therefore, not all of these principles may be applicable in all states.
1. Administrators choosing to pursue litigation for any adverse employment action must
be aware that school systems prevailed in litigation 73% of the time from 1981-2010 (O’Dea v.
School District, 1986; LeGalley v. Bronson Community Schools, 1983; McFall v. Madera
Unified School District, 1990; Pasqua v. LaFourche Parish School Board, 1981; Tazewell
County School Board v. Brown, 2004).
2. Administrators who are reassigned during periods of reduction in force are not
guaranteed appointments to newly created administrative positions if the local school board can
show that the position is an actual demotion or promotion (Breslin v. School Comm. of Quincy,
1985; Williams v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1., 1982).
3. Administrative reassignments during reductions in force must be based on seniority,
not performance or ability (Abington School District v. Pacropis, 1986; Appeal of Bernard E.
Cowden etc. Moon Area School District, 1984; Daury v. Smith, 1988; Gibbons v. New Castle
Area School District, 1985; In the Matter of Waterloo Community School District and
Concerning William J. Gowans, 1983).
421