Final Critical Analysis

Knox County Education Association v. Knox County Board of Education
Court did not rule on the policy as a whole; instead, they ruled on parts of the policy in an attempt to set a precedent for other school boards to follow when writing drug-testing policy. Suspicionless drug testing violates the fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It violates staff members’ reasonable expectations of privacy. Additionally, it did not appear to be needed at all in Knox County Schools. Drug testing staff members with reasonable suspicion is constitutional. It does not violate their right to privacy and it allows the government to “remove impaired employees from their jobs.”
Barr v. Board of Trustees
Ulichny v. Merton Community School District
Perez v. Commission on Professional
Teacher from San Diego. On review of Commission action, the trial court exercises its independent judgment on the evidence presented to the Commission. (Pasadena Unified Sch. Dist. v. Commission on Professional Competence (1977) 20 Cal.3d 309, 314 [142 Cal.Rptr. 439, 572 P.2d 53].) [8] The trial court’s judgment must be upheld on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. Tenure
Competence McLaughlin v. Tilendis
It is settled that teachers have the right of free association, and unjustified interference with teachers’ associational freedom violates the Due Process 1 year contract
Abood v. Detroit Board of Education
found that forcing public school employees to pay union dues affects their First Amendment rights. The Court held that a government employer and union may reach an agreement requiring employees to pay an agency service fee to cover the costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment. However, the decision clarified that objecting employees have a constitutional right to withhold payment of any union fees that support political and ideological causes.
We will write a custom essay sample on
Any topic specifically for you
For only $13.90/page
Order Now
City of Madison v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission
Union can help someone not in Union
Pickering v. Board of Education
1. Establishes that teachers can speak against the School Board on matters of public interest.
2. Establishes Teacher’s right to free speech
3. Inaccurate speech is permissible if given in good faith
4. Establishes that negative publicity against a school is not grounds to repress a teacher’s right to speak
5. limited if the teacher’s interest outweighs the school’s
6. Can not discuss confidential material.

*public interest always outweighs any of the above

Mt. Healthy School District v. Doyle
non-tenured high school teacher objected to a newly proposed teacher dress code. He circulated a memo from the school principal and gave it to a radio station, which reported on the dress code issue. When the teacher’s contract came up for renewal, the school declined to renew it. He sued, claiming that his employment was terminated in response to his public opposition to the teacher dress code. The school board asserted that it had other valid reasons for not rehiring the teacher. These included an allegation that the teacher made an obscene gesture to two students and was involved in an argument with another teacher. n a unanimous decision, the Court held that an employer can successfully defend itself in First Amendment employee litigation by showing that it would have made the same decision in the absence of the protected speech activity.
Connick v. Meyer
Garcetti v. Ceballos
the Supreme Court held that speech by a public official is only protected if it is engaged in as a private citizen, not if it is expressed as part of the official’s public duties; 1st Amendment (Right to Freedom of Speech, etc.).
Settlegood v. Portland Public Schools
In 2000, Dr. Pamella Settlegoode, an adaptive PE teacher, was fired by the Portland Public Schools after enduring 18 months of frustration in trying to advocate for her special education students. She sued the district and her supervisors, and the jury found in her favor on all claims and awarded her a $1 million settlement. (A magistrate judge subsequently overturned the jury award, but it was reinstated on appeal.)
Hoolihan v. Sussex Technical School District
he District Court of the District of Delaware held that Ms. Houlihan had alleged a claim under the Rehabilitation Act and under Delaware law. However, because her complaints were not made as a private citizen, but rather, as an employee of the District, it found that her First Amendment claim must be dismissed.
Canary v. Osborn
During this meeting, the administrators discussed ideas for increasing the students’ achievement test scores. In an affidavit filed with the district court, Canary asserts that the following exchange took place:

Kinker stated that she would be coming to the schools in the district and [would be] exhibiting actual tests and answers to the principals for review. She said principals would be allowed to copy the questions by hand, and then could go over them with teachers in their [respective] schools. I immediately objected to this because it was cheating and I was aware of a case in North Carolina where teachers had their certificates taken away for doing the same thing. Kinker said she had been doing this for years and that if anyone objected, she had gotten rid of them.

Urofsky v. Gilmore
The plaintiffs alleged that the law violated their right to access sexually explicit materials on the Internet for work-related purposes and that it infringed their rights to academic freedom by denying them the opportunity to determine for themselves the topics about which they would engage in research and teaching. A federal trial court granted the faculty members’ motion for summary judgment on the basis that the law violated their rights to freedom of speech, because it unconstitutionally infringed on their First Amendment rights by failing to provide sufficient clarity on the kinds of Web sites to which it was regulating access.
The court was satisfied that the statute was constitutional, because it regulated the speech of pubic employees only in their official capacities (and not as private citizens) as they addressed “matters of public concern.” The court explained that the speech of public employees involves matters of public concern and is entitled to First Amendment protection only when it addresses an issue of social, political, or other interest to the community, a situation that was not present in the case at bar.
Miles v. Denver Public Schools
Summarizes a case involving a Denver high school teacher’s naming, in a government class, of a student observed in a public sexual rendezvous. The teacher lost on all fronts, because his speech was considered school-sponsored and did not meet the school district’s pedagogical interests, based on the 1988 “Hazelwood” decision limiting student free speech rights. (nine references) (MLH)
Lee v. York County School District
On October 19, 2004, after speaking with the School Board about the complaint regarding Lee, Zanca proceeded to Lee’s classroom to discuss the matter with him. Lee was absent from school that day, however, and Zanca examined the materials posted on the bulletin boards in his absence. In so doing, Zanca discovered certain items that, in his view, should not have been posted in a compulsory classroom setting. Specifically, he testified that he “could not find any reason why [these items] would be posted in a classroom.” J.A. 161.3 Zanca removed five items (collectively, the “Removed Items” or the “Items”) from Lee’s bulletin boards: (1) a 2001 National Day of Prayer poster, featuring George Washington kneeling in prayer;
Jenkins v. Bishop
think by allowing the teachers’ names to remain upon the ballots we should make it clear that if and when an elected teacher 777*777 takes his oath of office as a legislator, he forfeits his right to serve as a teacher in the public schools so long as he remains a member of the legislative branch of government.
Downing v. West Haven Board of Education
…jesus shirt….not allowed
Montefusco v. Nassau County
…For the reasons discussed above, the motion of Defendant Board of Education of Lindenhurst Free Union School District is GRANTED in it entirety. Defendant Michael Mostow’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to all claims except that of malicious prosecution. The motion of Defendant Lindenhurst Union Free School District is GRANTED with respect to all claims except that of malicious prosecution.
Glover v. Williamsburg Local School District
he court found that the teacher’s 1st Amendment claim failed
~ Had to prove the speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the non-renewal decision.

Found the equal protection claims based on race and gender discrimination failed because of lack of evidence

The teacher won on his Equal Protection claim for sexual orientation discrimination
~ The board failed to establish a credible reason for not renewing the teacher, and the non-renewal decision was motivated by his sexual orientation

Nye v. Roberts
…sexaul harrsemt. she won
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks
…black employee of a halfway house operated by the Missouri department of corrections and human resources brought, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, an action under 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USCS 2000e-2(a)(1)) alleging that the halfway house had violated 703(a)(1) by demoting and then discharging the employee because of his race.
Rudin v. Lincoln Land Community College
…the school’s Screening Committee chose a pool of eligible candidates that did not include a “diverse” candidate. Then, however, the school’s Equal Employment Compliance Officer added the name of a black applicant, Paul Hudson, who had been considered by the committee but not chosen as a finalist for the position.

The Screening Committee interviewed all the finalists. Janine Rudin was ranked as second-best and Hudson second from the bottom. Nevertheless, Hudson was offered the job.

Rudin sued, claiming both racial and sexual discrimination against her by the college. Her case was dismissed by the trial court, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
Court held that teachers may not be dismissed or placed on involuntary leave if pregnant, because to do so would be to discriminate on the basis of sex.
City of Los Angeles v. Manhart
…that the use of sex divided tables violated Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination in employment. But this ruling applied only to employer-paid insurance policies and not to those purchased by individuals with private insurance companies. In addition, the ruling was weakened by the decision of a New York federal court which exempted certain employer plans from Title VII coverage (14).
Ansonia Board of Education v. Philbrook
…prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an undue hardship upon the employer. This means that:
Rendell Baker v. Kohn
…her position as a school counselor in retaliation for her opinion of administrative policy. Five others were later fired after they voiced their intention to form a union. no. The decision to discharge the Petitioners was not compelled or influenced by any state regulation.
Perry v. Sindermann
due process for dismissed teacher with tenure
Hortonville School District v. Hortonville Education Association
Teacher assoc. & teachers were in negotiation-assoc told teachers not to come to school one day-teachers didnt come-same thing as a walk out or strike. They used a process not approved by law. Teacher rights were gone-Teachers sued and lost. Teachers are critical employees and are forbidden by law to strike.
Altsheler v. Board of Education
Hamburg v. North Penn School District
Denton v. South Kitsap School District
…no sex with student
Board of Education v. Wilder
…must have sub lesson
Flickinger v. Lebanon Schools
…did not take care of pistol
Rizzo v. Goode
Court ruled supervisors may be held personally liable for a violation of Section 1983 if the plaintiff proves that the supervisor:
1) Received notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by subordinates
2) Demonstrated deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the offensive acts
3) Failed to make sufficient remedial action;
4) And his/her failure to act proximately caused the claim for injury.
Owen v. City of Independence
…, in which the court held that a municipality has no immunity from liability under Section 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may not assert the good faith of its officers as a defense to such liability.
Smith v. Wade
…Punitive damages are available in a proper case under § 1983. While there is little in the legislative history of § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (from which § 1983 is derived) concerning the damages recoverable for the tort liability created by the statute, the availability of punitive damages was accepted as settled law by nearly all state and federal courts at the time of enactment. Gut beat up in jail.
Christiansburg Garment Company v. EEOC
…clarified that the standard for awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing defendants is not the same as the standard for prevailing plaintiffs:
Torcaso v. Watkins
prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office, in the specific case, as a notary public
Hazen Paper Company v. Biggins
when the employer’s decision to terminate an employee is based on factors other than age