Court Case Personnel Issues


Published on

Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, School Law - Educaitonal Law & Policies - Personnel Issues and the Law - Employment - Litigation - Court Cases - Due Process - Legal Issues and Trends - Discrimination

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Court Case Personnel Issues

  1. 1. PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY PUBLIC SCHOOL LAW ADMN 5023 William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Professor PERSONNEL ISSUES Submitted by Toiya Gulley July 15, 2009
  2. 2. PERSONNEL ISSUES INTRODUCTION Case One United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit JETT, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant- Appellate No. 87-2084 LITIGANTS Plantiff- Apellate: Jett Defendant-Appellate: Dallas Independent School District BACKGROUND 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. FACTS 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 District court. DECISION 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.
  3. 3. DICTA 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. IMPLICATIONS 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.
  4. 4. PERSONNEL ISSUES INTRODUCTION Case Two LITIGANTS LEWIS ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS PASADENA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, NELDA SULLIVAN,, VICKIE MORGAN, TED SULLIVAN, CARMEN OROZCO, BOB BLAIR, MARSHALL KENDRICK, JR., FRED ROBERTS and FREDRICK SCHNEIDER, Defendants- Appellants. BACKGROUND 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. FACTS 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.
  5. 5. DECISION 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 wanted removed. DICTA 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. IMPLICATIONS Anderson’s experience highlights the importance of strict data that refers the case in question. The case was dismissed due to many factors.