Class Notes 6 April 2005
More on employee rights, a little bit into the
religion chapter
EDLD
5340
6 April 2005
Last week on Chap 21 of TEC on employee contract issues
also talked about Pickering and Mt Healthy last week
Looking at Sample EDLD 5340 final exam question
- this was a real scenario but happened in Georgia (first half was)
- from mid-1990s
- in Texas the valedictorian has value financially and with prestige / arguably a reputational impact
Our in-class activity, look at this scenario involving district employee
What are the issues?
For Pickering there are 4 steps:
1- Is the comment on a matter of public interest? (addressing a matter of public concern, not private interest)
2- Interest of public employee must be balanced against interest of the state as the employer "to promote the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees"
3- Demonstrate that "such protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment decision"
4- Now burden shifts to defendant, employer may show that the employment action would have been taken even in the absence of the protected conduct
This could be argued as public interest because the deciding of the Valedictorian is of interest to more than just a few people, and the rights of exchange students in general is a broader cause than just the interest of one person
- Ms Thornton seems to have overstepped bounds with her letter, however, because she is focusing just on one person (not exchange students in general) and persaonlizes this with her comment about the volleyball team
Timing of contract non-renewal
What questions would you have?
- is Ms. Thorton a term or probationary contract
-- different rights associated with her coach status?
Could she be employed in 2005 in a Texas school district as an "at will" contract teacher, or would she be either probationary/term contract employee?
You cannot terminate someone's employment even if they are "at will" for no cause, can't deny them constitutional rights
- a lot of business people are confused thinking that "at will" employees can be terminated at any time for any reason
45 days is an important amount of time in TEC, must notify the employee at least 45 days before the last day of instruction
- this is relevant to the analysis here
To be comprehensive in your analysis of a scenario, look both as if the teacher is on a probationary AND a term contract.
Note from TEC 21.102
"The board of trustees of a school district may terminate the employment of a teacher employed under a probationary contract at the end of the contract period if in the board ’s judgment the best interests of the district will be served by terminating the employment."
- there is just one reason that the board needs to state, "ti is not in the best interests of the district"
Now we will turn to Roth case (A&A p. 769) and Sindermann (p. 771)
- these were actually 30-40 page opinions
- these were both decided on the same day, unrelated cases, were not merged/consolidated
-- 2 different results
Tenured professor or continuing contract teacher, you have an expectation of continuing employment and also therefore DUE PROCESS
de jure tenure: an explicity gov't mandate, policy, made usually in writing
de facto tenure: in reality an institution that tended to renew people's contracts year to year in same way you would
Expectation of continued employment comes from these 2 cases, the legal doctrines established here
For the next 3 weeks after group presentations, we will be covering Chapter 5 Religion
- main cases: Lemon, Agostini Wallace, Lee and Mergens
- we will probably spend the most time on Mergens (Equal Access case)
We need to "see the ball, be the ball" -- when it comes to the A&A statutes in the back that pertain to equal access
Taxman case: p. 821
- 2 teachers hired same day, one white and one African-American
- their qualifications were virtually the same
- when it came to financial exigency, question was who should be terminated
US Government sued on the teacher's behalf under former President Bush's administration
- then Clinton adminstration took over, and US DOJ decided they were on the wrong side of the case
- so this left teacher in the fight by herself
- settlement was for 416K, not because the school district
- the NAACP kicked in almost the entire 416K for the settlement, ostensibly because if it had come before the US Supreme Court it would have provided them with an opportunity to "take a hatchet" to affirmative action
- this case scared off a lot of people who were affirmative action advocates
- this would have been argued in fall 97, but the supreme court could not hear it after it was settled
Read Arline case on p. 854
- key phrases: "otherwise qualified," "major life activities" and "reasonable accomodations"
6 April 2005
Last week on Chap 21 of TEC on employee contract issues
also talked about Pickering and Mt Healthy last week
Looking at Sample EDLD 5340 final exam question
- this was a real scenario but happened in Georgia (first half was)
- from mid-1990s
- in Texas the valedictorian has value financially and with prestige / arguably a reputational impact
Our in-class activity, look at this scenario involving district employee
What are the issues?
For Pickering there are 4 steps:
1- Is the comment on a matter of public interest? (addressing a matter of public concern, not private interest)
2- Interest of public employee must be balanced against interest of the state as the employer "to promote the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees"
3- Demonstrate that "such protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment decision"
4- Now burden shifts to defendant, employer may show that the employment action would have been taken even in the absence of the protected conduct
This could be argued as public interest because the deciding of the Valedictorian is of interest to more than just a few people, and the rights of exchange students in general is a broader cause than just the interest of one person
- Ms Thornton seems to have overstepped bounds with her letter, however, because she is focusing just on one person (not exchange students in general) and persaonlizes this with her comment about the volleyball team
Timing of contract non-renewal
What questions would you have?
- is Ms. Thorton a term or probationary contract
-- different rights associated with her coach status?
Could she be employed in 2005 in a Texas school district as an "at will" contract teacher, or would she be either probationary/term contract employee?
You cannot terminate someone's employment even if they are "at will" for no cause, can't deny them constitutional rights
- a lot of business people are confused thinking that "at will" employees can be terminated at any time for any reason
45 days is an important amount of time in TEC, must notify the employee at least 45 days before the last day of instruction
- this is relevant to the analysis here
To be comprehensive in your analysis of a scenario, look both as if the teacher is on a probationary AND a term contract.
Note from TEC 21.102
"The board of trustees of a school district may terminate the employment of a teacher employed under a probationary contract at the end of the contract period if in the board ’s judgment the best interests of the district will be served by terminating the employment."
- there is just one reason that the board needs to state, "ti is not in the best interests of the district"
Now we will turn to Roth case (A&A p. 769) and Sindermann (p. 771)
- these were actually 30-40 page opinions
- these were both decided on the same day, unrelated cases, were not merged/consolidated
-- 2 different results
Tenured professor or continuing contract teacher, you have an expectation of continuing employment and also therefore DUE PROCESS
de jure tenure: an explicity gov't mandate, policy, made usually in writing
de facto tenure: in reality an institution that tended to renew people's contracts year to year in same way you would
Expectation of continued employment comes from these 2 cases, the legal doctrines established here
For the next 3 weeks after group presentations, we will be covering Chapter 5 Religion
- main cases: Lemon, Agostini Wallace, Lee and Mergens
- we will probably spend the most time on Mergens (Equal Access case)
We need to "see the ball, be the ball" -- when it comes to the A&A statutes in the back that pertain to equal access
Taxman case: p. 821
- 2 teachers hired same day, one white and one African-American
- their qualifications were virtually the same
- when it came to financial exigency, question was who should be terminated
US Government sued on the teacher's behalf under former President Bush's administration
- then Clinton adminstration took over, and US DOJ decided they were on the wrong side of the case
- so this left teacher in the fight by herself
- settlement was for 416K, not because the school district
- the NAACP kicked in almost the entire 416K for the settlement, ostensibly because if it had come before the US Supreme Court it would have provided them with an opportunity to "take a hatchet" to affirmative action
- this case scared off a lot of people who were affirmative action advocates
- this would have been argued in fall 97, but the supreme court could not hear it after it was settled
Read Arline case on p. 854
- key phrases: "otherwise qualified," "major life activities" and "reasonable accomodations"
Posted: Wed - April 13, 2005 at 06:52 PM |
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Get More Info
Comments and Trackbacks powered by HaloScan.com.
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category: 13
Published On: Apr 13, 2005 06:52 PM
Total entries in this category: 13
Published On: Apr 13, 2005 06:52 PM
