ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

was not maintained at the level that it should have been in concurrence with natural salary
increases during the period. The LaFourche Parish School Board claimed that Pasqua’s salary
was higher than it was in a previous position but was not in accordance with pay increases. The
plaintiff was granted summary judgment and awarded back pay shortages; furthermore, the
school district was ordered to compensate Pasqua at the junior high level. LaFourche School
district appealed on the basis of material fact that the plaintiff was not entitled to summary
judgment.
Issues: (1) Was the plaintiff entitled to summary judgment? (2) Was the plaintiff’s salary
reduced? (3) What is the appropriate salary schedule for the plaintiff? (4) Does the plaintiff have
tenure as an administrator?
Holding: The court held that the school district had erred in its administration of the
salary schedule.
Reasoning: The appellate court applied Aydell v. Charles Carter & Company, Inc.
(1980), in so much that summary judgment is granted when the facts are so extraordinarily
irrelevant that they present no true issue. By the defendant’s own admission, the plaintiff’s salary
was higher than at his previous post but that increase was due to Act 11 of the 1980 Regular
Session, which was an increase in all teachers’ salaries not due to promotion of any sort.
Moreover, through its own admission the defendant acknowledged that when the junior high
assistant principal pay scale was applied to Pasqua’s position and experience, the plaintiff’s
salary was in fact below standard. Finally, the defendant admitted that the plaintiff served 4 years
as an administrator in its system at the junior high level but was now in a lower position and thus
in violation of R.S. 17:444 (Teacher Tenure Act).
40