ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

middle school and Grade 9 up to high school. The district felt that this move would better serve
the community and students. In so doing, the board also determined that the administrative
positions should be open for applications due to the changing nature of the role. The district felt
that a simple administrative rollover was not in the best interest of the school. Breslin et al.
declared the proceedings to be a “sham” in order to move the current junior high administration
out.
Breslin was a junior high principal when the Quincy reorganization was announced. The
board, although it did not recognize the due process provisions of G. L. c. 71 as being required
because the school reorganization was a legally valid process and no one was being terminated,
still provided Breslin et al. with a personnel hearing. Claiming that they were deprived of
adequate demotion hearings, Breslin et al. argued that their due process protections had been
violated. Following the hearing, the board voted to move forward with reorganization.
Through the interview process, only one current junior high administrator was selected
for the new middle school administration. All others were returned to teaching positions in the
system. Breslin et al brought suit on the grounds that their due process rights to demotion
hearings were violated based on Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 71, § 42 and § 43A. The court found
for the district. Breslin et al. appealed thereafter.
Issues: (1) Was the school reorganization completed in good faith and in accordance with
all relevant statutes? (2) Were Breslin et al. entitled to demotion hearings?
Holding: The court held that the findings of the superior court were supported with
adequate evidence and Berlin’s claims were null due to a bona fide school district restructuring.
Reasoning: The court found that the district reorganization was done so in good faith and
in the best interests of the policy. All evidence presented showed that the reorganization was
72