PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY
PUBLIC SCHOOL LAW
William Allan Kritsonis, PhD
July 15, 2009
United States Court of Appeals,
DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant- Appellate
Plantiff- Apellate: Jett
Defendant-Appellate: Dallas Independent School District
Jett, a white male, was hired as a teacher, athletic director, and head football
coach at a predominately black high school in the Dallas Independent School District. Jett
had repeated clashes with the high school’s principal, Todd, a black man over the policies
of the school and the football program. Principal Todd recommended that Jett be ridded
of his duties of athletic director and coach. The superintendent followed Todd’s
recommendation and placed Jett at another school as a teacher.
Jett alleged that Todd’s recommendations were racially motivated and that DISD through
Todd and Wright (superintendent) had discriminated against him. Jett brought this trial to
The District court jury upheld the law in Jett’s favor and honored Jett through the
42 U.S. C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause.
The Court of Appeals found the District’s court jury’s instructions to the liability
were deficient. There were many errors in the jury’s decisions. They held that: (1) A
municipality (i.e. school district) may not be held liable for its employees' violations of §
1981 under a respondent superior theory; (2) Court of Appeals would use the principles
enunciated in Monell, supra, and clarified in Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U. S. 469, and
St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U. S. 112, to determine whether or not Superintendent
Wright had the authority under Texas law in the area of employee transfers, and if so,
they would decide whether a new trial is required to determine the DISD's responsibility
for the actions of Principal Todd in light of this determination.
Jett’s argument was to prove that Jett had been treated unfairly on the basis of
racial influence. The Court Appeals reviewed the inconsistencies of the jury and District
Court in regards to the aforementioned case.
LEWIS ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
PASADENA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, NELDA SULLIVAN,, VICKIE
MORGAN, TED SULLIVAN, CARMEN OROZCO, BOB BLAIR, MARSHALL
KENDRICK, JR., FRED ROBERTS and FREDRICK SCHNEIDER, Defendants-
On November 6, 1995, Anderson filed suit, alleging that the defendants took
adverse employment action against him because he opposed a school bond election and
an administrative reorganization. He claimed violation of his free speech rights, and
asserted state law claims as well.
The defendants moved that the court case to be dismissed, due to “qualified
immunity”. The court asked Anderson to replead his case. Anderson repled his case. The
defendants moved for dismissal of the case for a second time. The case was dismissed,
and Lewis Anderson moved for his federal claims against the Pasadena Independent
School District, superintendent, and specific board members. The defendants also
appealed a monetary sanction that was related to an order for remand to state court.
The District Court dismissed Anderson’s case. This caused Anderson to appeal.
Also, the defendants in the case were issue a type of monetary sanction, of which they
The judgment appealed was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to
the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Court of
Appeals dismissed the case.
Anderson’s experience highlights the importance of strict data that refers the case
in question. The case was dismissed due to many factors.