ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

his current or former position. Osburn filed suit and was awarded certain measures. The school
board appealed.
Issues: (1) Was Osburn’s new position similar to his elementary principal position? (2)
Was the board bound by statute to appoint him to a principal position that became vacant? (3)
Osburn argued that his salary was not appropriately measured.
Holding: The court held that Osburn was entitled to ample pay for his contractual status
but not to a certain job position.
Reasoning: Section 228.041(10)(b) of the Florida statutes details the distinctions between
principals and assistant principals. Those distinctions made clear to the court that the assistant
principal position that Osburn filed was sufficient to fulfill the statutory requirements. Moreover,
the court relied on Berkner v. School Board of Orange County to mollify Osburn’s claims for
appointment to a principal position. In Berkner, the court mandated that a similar position with
salary maintained at the previous job was sufficient and legal. Consequently, that point draws
attention to the board’s determination to offer Osburn the higher of his two salaries--his current
job or his previous job. The court quickly noted that this was not in keeping with the law. By
suppressing his salary to the 1982 level of compensation or applying the assistant principal pay
scale to Osburn, the board violated his contract.
1985
Disposition: The court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Citation: Gibbons v. New Castle Area School District, 93 Pa. Commw. 28; 500 A.2d 922,
(1985 Pa. Commw.).
70