ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Reasoning: The court recounted that in Smith v. School Dist. (1957) it determined that a
demotion signified a lowering of rank and class. Moreover, the court in the Smith ruling also
viewed demotion in terms of permanency of role relegation, which was not the case here. In so
determining, the protective clauses against capricious demotions and employment actions built
into § 1151 of the Educational Code were not enacted due to the nature of the reassignments.
Disposition: The decision was affirmed.
Citation: Ledew v. School Board, 578 F. Supp. 202, (1984 U.S. Dist.).
Key Facts: Thomas Ledew served as director of beginning teacher induction programs,
personnel certification, and lunchroom proceedings. Approximately one year after his hire,
Ledew spoke in confidence to the State Attorney of Suwannee County about administrative
irregularities in the Suwannee County School Board. This speech was protected by the First
Amendment. Superintendent Frank R. Stankunas learned of the meeting and requested a letter of
resignation, which Ledew tendered on March 4, 1982.
Ledew brought suit seeking damages based on his termination for protected speech.
Ledew was awarded damages. Following the trial, Ledew filed for reinstatement. The board,
however, filed for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Issues: (1) Based on the facts presented, was Ledew’s resignation voluntary? (2) Was
there enough factual evidence to grant the board’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict? (3) Was Ledew entitled to reinstatement?
Holding: The court held that there was ample evidence to warrant the trial court’s
findings favoring Ledew.
Reasoning: To grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict is much the same as being
granted summary judgment. All questions come down to the validity and volume of fact
63