ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

29. A district/board’s proffered reasons for an employment action do not have to cite
incidents or achieve any established criteria to comply with due process requirements (Brown v.
Board of Education, 1996; Desoto County School Board v. Garrett, 1987; Joseph v. Lake Ridge
School Corporation, 1991).
30. Administrators must follow grievance protocol for the court to exercise any
jurisdiction over an employment action case (Chambers v. Central School District School Board,
1987; Corbett v. Duering, 2010; Hatcher v. Board of Public Education, 1987; Tazewell County
School Board v. Brown, 2004; Walsh v. Sto-Rox School District, 1987).
31. Speech by administrators in their official capacity concerning educational philosophy
and programming is not protected speech under the First Amendment (D’Angelo v. School
Board, 2007; Finch v. Fort Bend Independent School District, 2003; Vargas-Harrison v. Racine
Unified School District, 2001).
32. Speech by administrators in their official capacity concerning private employment
matters is not protected speech under the First Amendment (Bradshaw v. Pittsburg Independent
School District, 2000, Woods v. Enlarged City School District, 2007).
33. Damages cannot be awarded under § 1983 for amounts based on the “intrinsic” value
of the right such as the First Amendment (Lewis v. Harrison School District No. 1, 1986; Ratliff
v. Wellington Exempted Village Schools Board of Education, 1987).
34. Administrators must fully understand their tenure status and the protections, if any,
provided therein before pursuing costly litigation for adverse employment actions (Barr v. Board
of Trustees, 1995, Hinckley v. School Board of Independent School District, 2004; Pullum v.
Smallridge, 1983)
426