Teacher dismissal court cases
Ttuta case dismissed in the high court
In this scenario, the employee, a middle school teacher and dean of students, advertised sex on Craigslist. The commercial featured obscene written text as well as pornographic images of the employee. The ad was found by a parent, who reported it to the District. In addition, the District issued a notice of dismissal to the employee, citing apparent unfitness for service and unethical behavior as reasons for termination.
The employee petitioned the Committee on Professional Competence (“CPC”) for a hearing. The employee said that he did not wish for the listing to be seen by any students and that he “thought [it] would be adult and private.” He said that he never used school time, facilities, or money for the listing. Despite the fact that the employee’s behavior was vulgar, improper, and showed a severe error of judgment, the CPC found that the District lacked adequate grounds for dismissal since the listing and the employee’s jobs were not connected.
U.s. supreme court rules in favor of south bay catholic
The New York public school teacher sued the city department of education, the school’s principal, and the school’s vice principal, alleging that she was fired in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment right to free speech.
The conflict emerged after the teacher decided to include a critical examination of the Central Park Five case in her ninth-grade English curriculum, in which five black and Latino teenagers were wrongfully accused of the violent 1989 murder of a woman in Central Park.
After seeing the lecture, the assistant principal advised the teacher to explain the case in a “way more balanced” manner, fearing that it would unnecessarily “rile up” black students. The teacher and assistant principal got into a heated argument about it, but in the end, the teacher decided to obey the guidelines in order to keep the lesson balanced.
Her relationship with the supervisory staff allegedly deteriorated as a result of these problems, according to the complaint.
She was subsequently fired after receiving below-average scores in many performance reviews. Her case alleged that the negative performance reviews and firing were in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights.
Video: federal court case dismissed in michael moore death
Links to lists of related cases sorted by subject areas applicable to each case by protected class can be found under the title of each case overview below. Important case records, such as lawsuits, briefs, arbitration settlements, consent decrees, orders, and press releases, are linked from each case summary.
The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Section filed a motion to interfere in A.B. v. Rhinebeck Central School District and Thomas Mawhinney, a sexual assault lawsuit filed against the Rhinebeck Central School District and former high school principal Thomas Mawhinney, on March 18, 2004. Four current and former high school students, as well as a school employee, filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 9, 2003. The plaintiffs argued that Mawhinney and the school district violated state and federal laws, including Title IX. The US filed an intervention brief and complaint-in-intervention alleging that during Mawhinney’s ten-year tenure as principal, he sexually abused the four plaintiff students as well as other female high school students, and that the school district breached Title IX by acting with deliberate indifference to known sexual abuse of these students. The district objected to the government’s interference, and the government responded. The court granted the United States’ interference motion on August 25, 2004.
Cleveland board of education v. loudermill case brief
Any opposition or response to a petition, other than a MIRS, must be filed with OAH and served on both parties no later than 5:00 p.m. four (4) business days before the scheduled date for oral argument on the motion. There will be no additional answers or rebuttals to the moving and sensitive papers unless guided by OAH.
Confer and meet Prerequisite: Before filing any discovery motion, the parties or their lawyers must confer in good faith to prevent the need for the motion or to remove as many of the issues in question as possible. The moving party, or lawyer for the moving party, is responsible for arranging this meeting. The meeting could take place over the internet.
The Joint Stipulation must present the contested issues in the most succinct manner possible given the subject matter. A table of contents setting out the headings or subheadings found in the body of the Joint Stipulation must accompany any Joint Stipulation exceeding ten pages in length, excluding exhibits, but it is not required to be accompanied by a table of authorities.