ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

35. A district/board/superintendent’s recommendation to offer a contract does not create
pre-contractual property interests and rights (Downing v. City of Lowell, 2000; Housley v. North
Panola Consolidated School District, 1987; Kirschling v. Lake Forest School District, 1988;
Peterson v. Unified School District, 1989).
36. A contract does not create a property interest in going to work or performing certain
tasks that would circumvent disciplinary measures and discretion of the board to assign duties
(Terry v. Woods, 1992, Ulichny v. Merton Community School District, 2000).
37. School districts/boards are not bound to follow the recommendations of independent
investigative panels; they are only bound to consider the evidence proffered by the panels (Bell v.
Board of Education, 1984; Rabon v. Bryan County Board of Education, 1985).
Conclusions
The researcher’s intent during this study was to investigate the root of adverse
employment actions against school administrators. That investigation led to three distinct
categories that provided a wealth of information: school actions, employee actions, and
employee protections. From each vein, I was able to draw some strong conclusions.
First, administrators identified actions initiated by school districts that spurred adverse
employment actions and led to litigation. Those actions consistently involved reduction in force,
district realignment, discrimination, and constructive discharge. Reduction in force and district
realignment were two trends that were tied together in the 1980s. Only four reduction in force
claims occurred in the last 17 years of the study. However, if the current economic downturn
persists, this area of litigation may experience resurgence. As to constructive discharges and
discrimination claims, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that plaintiffs mistake these actions
or fail to prove that their circumstances were of this nature.
427