Title
EDUL 6012 Final Exam
Personnel Law Questions

Harold Culbreth | Cristy Lambert-Smith | Greg Kirkland

  • A tenured teacher refuses to comply with Georgia's law requiring the teacher in charge of each public school classroom to conduct a brief period of quiet reflection for not more than 60 seconds. The teacher claims that the Georgia law is an unconstitutional infringement on religious rights. What recourse does the school have?
    • According to Georgia code 20-2-940, the teacher’s refusal to comply is grounds for termination or dismissal. This teacher has refused to comply with Georgia law which is an example of insubordination or willful neglect of duties. The teacher’s failure to adhere to school policies demonstrates willful neglect of duties. According to Fair Dismissal laws, the board would be responsible for providing a written notice of charges to the teacher at least ten days before the hearing date at which time the case would be dealt with.
  • The school board has passed a resolution requiring all male teachers to wear a tie while teaching, except during physical education classes, shop classes, or other classes where legitimate health or safety reasons make wearing a tie problematic. Several teachers have objected that this dress code infringes on their free speech rights by denying them an opportunity to express themselves through their dress, and that the regulation discriminates on the basis of gender. Can the school board require male teachers to wear ties?
    • Yes, local school boards can require male teachers to wear ties. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act doesn’t appear to be violated so the teachers who are objecting do not appear to have reason to do so. It seems it would be almost impossible to prove discrimination.
  • In early April an untenured teacher in a Georgia school district receives notice that her contract will not be renewed for the following year. She immediately goes to the principal's office and demands that the principal tell her why she is not being renewed. What should the principal do?
    • The principal is not obligated to give any reason for non-renewal since this is an untenured teacher and notice was given to her prior to April 15th. The Fair Dismissal Law does not apply since this teacher was untenured.

      It might be a good idea for the principal to offer no comment other than that the teacher’s services are no longer needed. A provision of the Quality Basic Education Act requires that all tenured and non tenured teachers who have been determined deficient during annual evaluations be provided with a professional development plan. (O.C.G.A. § 20-2-210). If the principal noted no deficiencies in the annual evaluation and then tried to claim that as a cause for non renewal, the teacher would have a pretty good defense. Another scenario where the teacher would have a good defense is if deficiencies were noted and the teacher was given no plan to target working on those deficiencies.
  • A teacher has been dismissed by the school board for sending a letter to a local newspaper in connection with a recently proposed tax increase. The letter was critical of the way the board had handled past proposals. The board determined that the publication of the letter was detrimental to the efficient operation and administration of the school district. Will the dismissal be upheld?
    • The First Amendment protects this teacher because the teacher is entitled to free speech where the speech is a public issue and of public concern. If the board is dismissing the teacher solely for expressing his/her opinion on this matter, the teacher should be re-instated. Lawyers might be involved to determine whether or not this is indeed a case of public concern and issue. It shouldn’t be too hard since the issue involves taxes. The school board must prove that the publication was detrimental to the efficient operation and administration of the school district for the dismissal to be upheld.

      If the teacher presents substantial evidence that sending the letter was ‘the’ motivating factor in the board’s decision, then the board must show that they would have taken the same action for other reasons, had the letter not been sent.
  • A teacher has been dismissed by the school board for sending a letter to a local newspaper in connection with an internal dispute over when the teacher's lunch hour should be scheduled. The board determined that the publication of the letter was detrimental to the efficient operation and administration of the school district. Will the dismissal be upheld?
    • Failure to cooperate with colleagues or administrators is recognized as an example of a reason for dismissal under ‘any other good and sufficient cause’ of the Fair Dismissal Law. Decisions such as scheduling a teacher’s lunch hour doesn’t need to be discussed openly with the public. It gives the public a poor perception of ability of the teachers and administrators to work together. It appears that the dismissal of this teacher could have been avoided had the teacher chosen a different way to go about complaining, disagreeing, etc. However, since the teacher has chosen to involve others by writing a letter for public viewing and the board chose to dismiss the teacher, the dismissal will more than likely be upheld under the Fair Dismissal Law.
  • A school board plans to dismiss a teacher because of poor performance and a series of unprofessional fights with both faculty and students. Shortly before his dismissal, the teacher calls a local radio station and raises several issues of alleged misconduct by the school district. After being dismissed, the teacher claims that his rights of Free Speech were violated by the dismissal. Will the dismissal be upheld?
    • Yes, the dismissal should be upheld. The school board had planned to dismiss the teacher before the call to the radio station. The reason for dismissal appears to be covered under the Fair Dismissal Law relating to incompetency as well as failure to cooperate with colleagues and administrators under ‘any other good and sufficient cause’. The teacher is entitled to Free Speech but the call to the radio station is not the reason the teacher is being dismissed.
  • During non-instructional time, a middle school teacher is busy grading papers and allows a student to play a video tape for the class to view, without previewing the tape. The video tape contains some indecent language and images, and many parents complain to the principal and school board about the incident. The teacher is dismissed, and in a dismissal hearing the teacher claims rights of academic freedom and that the tape had serious educational value. Will the dismissal be upheld?
    • It is possible for the appeal to be overturned by finding the teacher’s actions resulting from inexperience. Perhaps dismissal is too severe.
  • A high school social studies teacher has been inviting various political speakers to his class to lecture students concerning a variety of political ideologies. The teacher invites a member of the U. S. Communist Party to speak. Subsequently, many parents contact the school board, complaining of the teaching of communist ideas in the school. The board votes to dismiss the teacher. Will the dismissal be upheld?
    • The board’s dismissal will most likely not be upheld. It appears the teacher has arranged for the guest speaker for the sole purpose of providing students with information covering a wide range of political views. There is no mention of intent on the teacher’s part to advocate communism, only to provide information.

      Title VII of the Civil Acts Right does state that it is not unlawful to discriminate against the Communist Party. However, it doesn’t appear that this has occurred.
  • A school board has established a policy requiring mandatory drug testing of student athletes and their coaches. Is the policy constitutional?
    • According to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2002, it would be constitutional to test student athletes. The case of Board of Education of Pottawatomie v. Earls found that students participating in competitive extracurricular activities were subject to drug tests and that it was not in violation of their fourth amendment rights.

      Mandatory drug testing of school employees is limited to bus drivers. If the coach is engaged in ‘safety-sensitive’ functions then he/she is subject to the mandatory drug testing as well.
  • The high school faculty in a Georgia school adopts a policy prohibiting any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Subsequently, several high school teachers publicly announce their homosexuality. The school board publicly condemns the high school's sexual orientation policy, and moves to dismiss all the teachers that publicly announced their homosexuality. Will the dismissals be upheld?
    • There is no Federal Law that protects homosexual teachers. The school board is within their right dismiss all of the teachers who announced their homosexuality. The school board is does not have to abide by the high school faculty’s policy. The dismissals will be upheld.
  • A teacher is serving in the third consecutive year for the same Georgia school district. At the end of that school year, the school district decides not to renew the teacher's contract. The teacher claims that she is "tenured" and can only be dismissed based on a valid cause under Ga. Code § 20-2-940. Who is correct?
    • The school district is correct. She is not considered “tenured” until she is under contract for her fourth year of teaching at that school. Because she is at the end of her third school year, she is not considered “tenured”.
  • A teacher was formerly tenured in Houston County, Georgia and resigned. Several years later, the teacher accepts a teaching contract in another Georgia county school system. At the end of the school year, the school district decides not to offer the teacher another contract. The teacher claims that she is tenured, and can only be dismissed based on a valid cause under Ga. Code § 20-2-940. Who is correct?
    • The school district is correct because in order to remain tenured, or protected under the Fair Dismissal Law, the teacher must serve consecutive years. This teacher had a break in employment and therefore is not protected under the Fair Dismissal Law.
  • A teacher was formerly tenured in Alabama and resigned to move to Georgia. The teacher accepts a teaching job in a Georgia county school system. At the end of the school year, the school district decides not to offer the teacher another contract. The teacher claims that she is tenured, and can only be dismissed based on a valid cause under Ga. Code § 20-2-940. Who is correct?
    • The school district is right because tenure from another state does not cross over into Georgia. The teacher must serve the appropriate time in Georgia to be considered “Tenured”
  • A public school administrator is tenured. The administrator is subsequently reassigned to another position having less responsibility and prestige, but is given a small raise. The administrator claims that the reassignment is a demotion, and requests a due process hearing. The school district denies the request for a due process hearing. Who is correct?
    • The school district is correct because it can’t be considered a demotion unless the administrator loses pay. In this case, the administrator was given a raise. In order for the administrator to be correct, all three elements, responsibility, prestige and salary must all be considered. In this instance, he was given a raise, so the school district was correct.receive the regular annual raises given to peers. The administrator claims that the reassignment is a demotion, and requests a due process hearing. The school district denies the request for a due process hearing. Who is correct?
  • A public school administrator is tenured. The administrator is subsequently reassigned to another position having less responsibility and prestige, and does not receive the regular annual raises given to peers. The administrator claims that the reassignment is a demotion, and requests a due process hearing. The school district denies the request for a due process hearing. Who is correct?
    • The administrator is correct because the move negatively affects his or her pay, therefore he or she has the right to a due process hearing.
  • A school district has established a system of hiring that provides preferences to certain individuals on the basis of race. An otherwise qualified applicant, a member of a non-preferred race, has filed suit against the school district claiming that the school's hiring policy violates the Equal Protection clause of the U. S. Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although the school acknowledges that its race based actions are not required as a remedial measure, the school claims its policy is justified by the need to achieve racial diversity in the district. Who is most likely to prevail?
    • The teacher will prevail. Because in Title VII Section 703 of the Equal Protection of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it states that “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer-- (1)to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Therefore, this practice is illegal. It would be hard to prove, but it is illegal.
  • A school district, which already has a male counselor, is seeking a female counselor for its high school. A male applicant, who is otherwise qualified for the second counselor position, has filed suit against the school district claiming that the school's hiring policy violates the Equal Protection clause of the U. S. Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Who is most likely to prevail?
    • This answer is the same as Number 16. It does not matter if the person is being discriminated against because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In this case, the person is being discriminated against because of his sex. Therefore, it is illegal and the male counselor would prevail. However, if the school can prove that they have a high number of female students and therefore could prove that they must have a female counselor for these students, then the school district could fall under the exclusion of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that it is not unlawful to hire on the bases of sex when sex of the applicant is an occupational qualification necessary to the normal operation of that school.
  • A school superintendent believes that since the vast majority of the community is Christian, that their local schools should reflect these Christian values. Therefore, the superintendent is seeking Christian teachers for the local schools. A non-Christian applicant sues the school district claiming a violation of Title VII. The superintendent responds that Title VII provides for an exception for employment related to "religion, sex, or national origin" where there is "a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. " But if the school will not hire Christian teachers only, the superintendent states that he will open a competing private school hiring only Christian teachers. Who is most likely to prevail?
    • The non-Christian applicant will prevail. Title VII says that this practice is illegal. Not only is it against the law for this school district to do this, it is against the law for them to even ask about the applicant’s religious background. The Superintendent is free to leave and open a competing private school hiring only Christian teachers. This is legal because they will not be receiving Federal Funds. If the school is funded privately, then that practice is legal.
  • The state legislature has adopted a policy of hiring only U. S. citizens for public school teaching positions. A resident alien, who is married to a U. S. citizen and has been living in the U.S. for ten years is denied employment as a public school teacher and sues. Who is most likely to prevail?
    • Based on title VII, The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) prohibits employers with more than four employees from discriminating due to citizenship status. The individual will prevail in their suit against the school system.
  • An office secretary, serving as an "at will" employee, has performed her duties satisfactorily for five years. Despite her strenuous objections, she is transferred to another office position. After she is transferred, she distributes a questionnaire to other office workers in the district soliciting their views on the district transfer policy, office moral, confidence in administration, and the need for a grievance policy. She is terminated for insubordination because of her refusal to accept her transfer and the distribution of the questionnaire. She sues the school district, claiming that she has been wrongfully terminated for exercising her rights to free speech. Who is most likely to prevail?
    • If in fact the employee did refuse transfer, the employer will win its suit because the secretary’s actions would be considered insubordination.
  • A teacher was absent six or seven days per year for religious holidays. School policy allowed three days per year for religious holidays, but prohibited using sick leave or personal leave for religious holidays. The teacher repeatedly asked the school board to adopt a policy that would allow the use of personal leave days for religious holidays, or to allow the teacher to receive his regular daily pay on religious holidays and to reimburse the school for the cost of a substitute teacher. The board rejects the proposals, but would allow limited unpaid leave for the teacher. The teacher sues, claiming religious discrimination in violation of Title VII. Who is most likely to prevail?
    • In 1986, the case of Ansonia Board of Education v Philbrook (479 U.S. 60) found that the school board was not required to accept the teacher’s proposal even if acceptance would not result in undue hardship. The school board only had to offer a fair and reasonable accommodation of the teacher’s religious needs. In this instance, the school system would win; the teacher has not been discriminated against and the school system has offered reasonable accommodation.
  • A school administrator was suspended and placed on leave pending an investigation of alleged misappropriations of equipment and sexual harassment. While the administrator was on leave, school personnel conducting the investigation entered and searched his office, seizing several personal items from his desk and files. Some of these items were used in the hearing that resulted in the administrator's termination. The administrator sues, claiming that the search of his office was illegal and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Who is most likely to prevail?
    • In this case, the school system would prevail. Although the Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizure, the administrator was placed on leave with reasonable cause. In O’Connor v. Ortega, the courts found that search of property was permissible “for non-investigatory work-related purposes as well as for investigation of work-related misconduct.” In this case, the reason for search was justified because it was directly related to the reason the employee was suspended. The fact that evidence was found supports the relationship between the search and “work-related misconduct.”
  • A public school superintendent appointed a community advisory panel to provide input on certain public school issues. The superintendent chose individuals from the community on the basis of their leadership in community groups. A group of African-American citizen's claimed that there is a numerical racial imbalance on the advisory panel. They presented evidence that the superintendent was unaware of some of the African-American groups in the community. They filed a suit alleging denial of equal protection and requesting proportional racial representation on the advisory panel. Who is most likely to prevail?
    • The group claiming discrimination will likely win this suit. Even though the superintendent can likely prove that he had no ill intent, the minority groups must still be included in such decision making bodies when applicable according to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In the past, the Supreme Court has found that some practices are “fair in form, but discriminatory in operation”.
  • The state has adopted a test of academic skills that individuals must pass to be eligible for employment as public school teachers. While there is no showing of discriminatory intent or administration of the test, nearly four times more African-Americans as whites have failed the test. A group of African-Americans that failed the test have claimed that the test has a disproportionate racial impact, and is therefore unconstitutional. Who is most likely to prevail?
    • The State Department of Education is most likely to win this suit because title VII states that is not unlawful “to give and act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided such test, its administration or the action upon the results in not designed, intended or used to discriminate.”
  • A teacher has signed a contract to teach physical education in a Georgia public school district. Two months before the school year begins, the teacher receives and accepts an offer from another school district. The teacher tells the school she has another job offer and asks the school to cancel her contract. The school district refuses and sues the teacher for breach of contract. Who is most likely to prevail?
    • According to Georgia Code 20-2-942b the teacher must given written notification prior to May 1st to legally back out of prearranged contract within a state. A school system can choose to let someone out of their contract if they feel they have another candidate who is equally or more qualified.
  • A school district has replaced a 56 year old public school administrator with a 40 year old administrator. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)prohibits discrimination in employment against those who are 40 or older. The 56 year old administrator sues the school district under the ADEA. The school district responds by claiming that the ADEA does not apply because both employees in this case are older workers eligible for ADEA protection, and the 56 year was not replaced by someone outside the age group protected by the ADEA What is correct?
    • In 1996, the Supreme Court found that under the Age Discrimination act of 1967, "The fact that one person in the protected class has lost out to another person in the protected class is…irrelevant, so long as he has lost out because of his age." Therefore, the individual is correct and not the school system.
  • A Georgia public school principal has been the subject of several inaccurate charges made by a community member. The community member has communicated these charges to other persons in conversations and in a letter to the local newspaper. The principal explained to the community member why these charges were inaccurate, and told the community member that she will file a suit for slander and libel if he does not stop making these inaccurate and stigmatizing charges. The community member responds that since the principal is a public official, he has a First Amendment right to make these statements. Who is correct?
    • The principal must prove that the statements damaged his/her public reputation and the statements were made with reckless disregard. The First Amendment protects the right of freedom of speech but not for slander.