Nontenured Schools Case Study
The Roth and Sindermann cases are the legal precedents for assessing the procedural rights of nontenured teachers (See Figure 12.1). Because the Supreme Court has held that impairment of an employee’s property or liberty interests triggers procedural protections, the question arises as to what constitutes a violation of these interests. Courts have purposely avoided precisely defining the concepts of liberty and property, preferring to allow experience and time to shape their meanings. Since 1972, the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts have rendered many decisions that provide guidance in understanding these concepts.
Property Interest. In general, a nontenured employee does not have a property claim to reappointment unless state or local governmental action has clearly established such a right. For example, a teacher challenged his nonrenewal arguing that the principal had given him a positive mid-year evaluation but advised him that the principal would recommend his nonrenewal. The Seventh Circuit clarified that the principal’s evaluation did not create a property interest in continued employment. Further, the nonrenewal was valid considering that after the principal’s evaluation, the teacher demonstrated a lack of professionalism in …show more content…
For example, a principal who was reassigned to the central office was not entitled to a hearing since he would continue to receive his regular salary and benefits; deprivations related to professional satisfaction and reputation did not constitute actionable injuries. In contrast, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that a collective bargaining agreement specifying that teachers may not be transferred except for “good cause” and “extenuating circumstances” established a property interest in a particular position in a specific
Property Interest. In general, a nontenured employee does not have a property claim to reappointment unless state or local governmental action has clearly established such a right. For example, a teacher challenged his nonrenewal arguing that the principal had given him a positive mid-year evaluation but advised him that the principal would recommend his nonrenewal. The Seventh Circuit clarified that the principal’s evaluation did not create a property interest in continued employment. Further, the nonrenewal was valid considering that after the principal’s evaluation, the teacher demonstrated a lack of professionalism in …show more content…
For example, a principal who was reassigned to the central office was not entitled to a hearing since he would continue to receive his regular salary and benefits; deprivations related to professional satisfaction and reputation did not constitute actionable injuries. In contrast, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that a collective bargaining agreement specifying that teachers may not be transferred except for “good cause” and “extenuating circumstances” established a property interest in a particular position in a specific