The National Gay Task Force sued the Oklahoma City Board of Education claiming a statute allowing firing of teachers for public homosexual activity violated teacher rights. The US District Court upheld the statute but the appeals court reversed. A teacher in Colorado claimed the school district violated his religious rights by not providing paid leave for Jewish holidays. The district court and appeals court found no violation of Title VII. A teacher was fired for writing a letter criticizing the school board. The Illinois Supreme Court found this violated the teacher's First Amendment rights. [END SUMMARY]

1. Plaintiff Defendant Court Hearing the Case
Main Issue
Facts of the Case
Court Decision Appeals
National Gay Task Force
(NGTF)
Oklahoma City Board of Education U.S. District Court
May a board constitutionally fire a public
school teacher who engages in public
homosexual conduct that poses a substantial
risk of coming to the attention of
schoolchildren or employees?
Yes, a school board may fire a
public school teacher for this.
NGTF Appealed
U.S. Court of Appeals decision:
reversed
An Oklahoma statue allowed the firing of teachers for public homosexual activity, which
would come to the attention of children and employees. NGTF challenged the statue,
claiming it violated teacher’s rights to free speech, privacy, and equal protection.
(Aquila, 2008, p. 202)

2. Plaintiff Defendant Court Hearing the Case
Main Issue
Facts of the Case
Court Decision Appeals
Pinsker, a Jewish teacher in
Aurora, Colorado; Aurora
Teacher’s Association
Aurora School District U.S. District Court
Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act require
school districts to reasonably accommodate
the reli- gious practices of their employees by
providing paid leave for all religious holidays?
No. Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act does require school districts
to reasonably accommodate the
religious practices of their
Pinsker appealed.
Appeal was affirmed.
The Aurora school district allowed 12 personal days for general use, as well as 2 special
personal leave days to use for religious holidays. Christmas and Good Friday were school-
wide holidays. Pinsker claims he had to use one unpaid leave day a year for Jewish
holidays, and the district was violating his first amendment rights and not accommodating
his rights under Title VII.
(Aquila, 2008, p. 203)

3. Plaintiff Defendant Court Hearing the Case
Main Issue
Facts of the Case
Court Decision Appeals
Martin L. Pickering, a teacher in
Township High School District 205
Board of Education, Will County Illinois State Supreme Court
Do school officials violate the First
Amendment by terminating a teacher for
writing a letter to the editor of a local
newspaper in which he discusses important
matters of public concern?
Yes. It was ruled that school
officials violate First Amendment
Rights when terminating a
teacher who is speaking as a
citizen with public concerns.
Pickering appealed.
Appeal was reversed
and remanded.
Pickering was terminated due to a letter to the editor he wrote criticizing the board’s
allocation of funds between athletics and academics. The board claimed he had made
false statements damaging the characters of the school and superintendent, and Illinois
law required his dismissal. Pickering sued for violation of his First Amendment rights.
(Aquila, 2008, p. 208)

4. Plaintiff Defendant Court Hearing the Case
Main Issue
Facts of the Case
Court Decision Appeals
LaFleur, a pregnant school teacher Cleveland Board of Education U.S. District Court
Is a mandatory leave rule, which claims
pregnant teachers physically incapable of
performing their duties after four months,
constitutional?
No. This type of mandatory rule
violates the due process clause,
protecting the freedom of
marriage and family life from
governmental intrusion.
Appealed to U.S. Court of
Appeals. It was reversed. The
U.S. Supreme Court
Affirmed.
LaFleur, a pregnant junior high teacher, was forced to take unpaid leave maternity leave
five months prior to her due date due to a school state such. She filed suit to the district
court who upheld the school rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed it, stating it viotlated
the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
(Aquila, 2008, p. 223)

5. Plaintiff Defendant Court Hearing the Case
Main Issue
Facts of the Case
Court Decision Appeals
The federal government and
certain individuals
The state of South Carolina and
various political subdivisions
thereof
U.S. District Court
Does a state’s use of the National Teacher
Examination to hire and set the pay scale of
teachers violate the Fourteenth
Amendment?
No. a state does not violate the
14th Amendment when doing
this. Rational use of the test was
determined to be used in the
hiring process of teachers.
Not appealed.
South Carolina’s school system used the scores from the National Teacher Examination, a
standardized test, to help determine which teachers it would hire as qualified teachers.
The federal government filed suit stating that the test violated the equal protection clause
of the 14th Amendment, in that it practiced racial discrimination as African American’s
tended to score lower on the test than whites.
(Aquila, 2008, p. 225)

6. Plaintiff Defendant Court Hearing the Case
Main Issue
Facts of the Case
Court Decision Appeals
Kenai Peninsula Education Assn. ;
Anchorage Borough Education Assn., both
teachers’ unions; Matanuska-Susitna School
Dist. , a school board
Kenai Peninsula Borough School Dist. ; Anchorage
Borough School Dist. , both school boards;
Matanuska-Susitna Education Assn. , a teachers’
union
State Trial Court
Are school boards required to bargain
collectively in good faith with teachers’
unions on matters pertaining to their
employment and the fulfillment of their
professional duties?
Yes. Thought the school board
does not need to accept any
union proposal, they must
bargain collectively in good faith.
Appealed to State Supreme
Court.
Affirmed in Part, reversed in
part
Based on three cases: In the first two cases, Kenai and Anchorage, the unions field suit
against the boards to compel with collective bargaining in good faith. The third, the board
filed suit for judgement that some things were not negotiable. The unions argued allowing
teacher unions to have final say in matters was unconstitutional as it allowed a private
entity to be accountable for public decisions. The unions claimed the teachers were
professionals and they acted as advice to the boards.
(Aquila, 2008, p. 244)

7. Plaintiff Defendant Court Hearing the Case
Main Issue
Facts of the Case
Court Decision Appeals
Lehnert, nonunion college faculty
membe
Ferris Faculty Association U.S. District Court
May a union charge nonmembers for services
that add significant burdens on free speech
and are not germane to collective bargaining
activity or justified by the government’s
interest in labor peace and avoiding free
riders?
No. They may not charge a fee to
non-members that place
significant burdens to free
speech.
U.S. court of Appeals and
U.S. Supreme Court both
affirmed.
The exclusive bargaining representative for a particular unit set up an agency shop that
charged non-members fees equal to that of the dues owed by members. Lehnert claimed
these fees violated the first and fourteenth amendments.
(Aquila, 2008, p. 225)

8. Plaintiff Defendant Court Hearing the Case
Main Issue
Facts of the Case
Court Decision Appeals
Roderick Jackson (P), public school
teacher
Birmingham Board of
Education
U.S. District Court
Does Title IX’s private cause of action apply
when the person wasn’t the victim of sexual
discrimination, but was retaliated against for
complaining of sexual discrimination?
Yes. Title IX prohibits the recipient of
funds from discriminating against anyone
based on their sex.
U.S. court of Appeals
affirmed.
U.S. Supreme Court reversed
and remanded.
Jackson filed suit against the board claiming they violated Title IX by retaliating against him for
making complaints of sexual discrimination against the girls basketball teach, of which he coached.
After the complaint was filed, he was terminated from his coaching duties. He filed suit, and the
district court dismissed the case claiming claims of retaliation were not within the private clause of
Title IX. The case was appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision and ultimately
remanded it back to the lower courts.
(Aquila, 2008, p. 264)

9. Plaintiff Defendant Court Hearing the Case
Main Issue
Facts of the Case
Court Decision Appeals
Viemeister, a tenured principal Board of Education of Borough
of Prospect Park
State Superior Court
Appellate Division
May a tenured principal be terminated and
replaced without charges being brought
against him and without a hearing being
conducted?
No. School law states teachers
must have charges filed and a
hearing to be terminated for
cause.
Not appealed.
Viemeister’s tenured principal position was not a teaching positing. The board voted to
abolish the current principal position in favor of a teaching principal position, and
Viemeister was terminated without charges or a hearing.
(Aquila, 2008, p. 265)

10. References
Aquila, F. D. (2008). School law for K-12 educators: Concepts and cases. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.