ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

similar position assuming that all applicable certifications were possessed. Those
recommendations went unheeded.
The board chose to post all new administrative positions and take applications. The board
reasoned that each of these positions carried more prestige and responsibility and thus these
positions were to be considered a promotion. Accordingly, each appellant applied for his/her
reincarnated position; each was not selected. Hinshaw and Holzworth were moved to secondary
teacher positions while Haak was made a school counselor and Cummings an elementary school
facilitator.
Each appealed to the district court for a writ of certiorari where their cases were then
combined. The district court remanded the case back to the board. Appellants disregarded this
motion and filed suit.
Issues: (1) Did Haak et al. qualify for protection under the Teacher Tenure Act (Minn.
Stat. § 125.17)? (2) Did they garner protections from a collective bargaining agreement
negotiated by the Association of Central Administrative Personnel (ACAP)? (3) Should the
appellants have been assigned to the newly created administrative positions? (4) Should the
district court have reinstated them prior to this appeal?
Holding: The court held, like the trial court, that there was insufficient evidence as to
whether or not the appellants had valid claims on almost every ground. They affirmed on every
point of remand by the trial court. They did reverse the court’s opinion that ISD-625 was bound
to § 125.17 because it conducted demotion hearings with the appellants.
Reasoning: At issue first was the amount of due process protection, if any, that the
appellants should have received based on § 125.17. ISD-625 claimed that the appellants were not
teachers as is specified in the Teacher Tenure Act and therefore were not due any protection
78