EDU 210 Test 3

did not want random drug testing in their contracts but the courts ok'd it.

teaching at middle school and they decided they were going to move her to elementary school and she did not want to go, challenged her placement, and the court said if they want to assign you to one they can

decided did not want him in that position anymore (assist. Superintendent) and moved him to being a principal, court upheld that. As long as pay stays

person who was a principal and they changed her job description, assign duties to someone else, making it a little easier, no cut in pay.

he wants to be coaching and the school says they are going in a different direction, sued them because he had a contract to teach and coach, coaching is additionally, remove that anytime.

Plaintiffs, public employees and their same-sex partners, brought a declaratory judgment action against defendants, the governor and a city, seeking a declaration that Const. 1963, art 1, § 25, did not bar public employers from providing health-insurance benefits to their employees' qualified same-sex domestic partners. The trial court found for plaintiffs, and the Court of Appeals, Michigan, reversed. Plaintiffs and the governor appealed.

contesting the dismissal of one of the employees, generally rule in favor of school districts, on a track where it was documented that people were unhappy with them

said I don't mind paying for the union when they represent me, going to the legislature, doing lobbying behavior, court ruled that you can look at how much membership fees goes for what and can be a member and not pay for the lobbying stuff but only the stuff that benefits you

do not have to be a member of the union to talk to the school board.

(1968) - teacher for local school district, not pleased with the superintendant and thought funds were being misused, wrote into the newspaper about his thoughts, he was fired, he appealed said he had first amendment rights, supreme court said give him his job back and all the money he earned while he was fired -First Amendment rights for matters of public concern, unless the expression: -Impairs teaching effectiveness -Jeopardizes relationships with supervisors / coworkers -Interferes with management of the school

tenure employee, behavior was so terrible, district let him go

district attorneys office, women was assistant DA, did not like the way the office was being ran, very political, she put together a survey on office morale and sent it around, survey was inflammatory, people would say woah, this person is really mad at the bosses, not anonymous, disruption was caused, they fired her, protested it, only looking at something which is how the office is ran, public concern, court said maybe so but it looks like the way you went about it caused disruption, right to protest but have to do it in a manner

supreme court ruling, district attorney office, assistant DA who looked at a case which was going through the office, criminal or someone alleged to be a criminal being prosecuted and he thought the way the way it was being conducted was illegal, thought the cops had lied to get a search warrant, case started going through process of hearings, police had evidence but did not turn it over, goes to the supreme court, when you are speaking in public about a matter which is a public concern if that knowledge that you have is part of your job, no freedom of expression rights

teacher who works in special ed, thinks the funds are not flowing to her students, her students are being deprived of services, districts are not doing it, my kids are not getting what they need, courts say what she is talking about is of public concern, needs her job back and all of her negative things given back

kids being deprived of services, fired, in the meantime, garcetti decision, no constitutional expression

asst. principal in the school district which had a policy of cheating, giving kids answers, protested about that, got himself fired, financial reasons, that is obviously a lie, fired him for making a report to the state board of education, it was ok for him to do that, the board made a personnel decision, not immune for suit, board treated him unfairly, can be sued for

miles thought his 9th grade social studies class would be interested in the boy and girl fellow students that he saw doing it on the tennis court during lunch time, deemed to be inappropriate, miles was sent away

went through the courts and the courts said they don't see a conflict of interest, be citizen legislators and hold their jobs

teacher who wore the tshirt for the millenium J2K, objected, court sided with district, promoting religion

a photographer to the extent that he liked to take pictures of teenage girls almost naked, inappropriate behavior for teacher in public schools, police said it was not child pornography, school said it raises the ew factor, parents are uncomfortable, court said reasonable stance to take

belonged to an organization MBLA - man boy love association/ the best way for young men to come to understand sexuality is to be tutored by an older man, his presence in this organization deemed to find him unfit, reasonable to the courts

duke power had a large employer in north carolina and had a requirement that for advancement in position, or they had to have a high school diploma or have a certain score on an IQ test, for the white kids in the black community this was hard, acquisition of knowledge, show this and able to show that the applicants possessed all the skills and attributes to be successful in the position, ordered duke power to stop the practice and see that African Americans can succeed.

an employee who brought a personnel complaint forward, went through grievance process, unsuccessful in the courts, not able to prove that he is being discriminated by the company, went back to work and after his evaluations became more negative and more things to do that aren't very fun, retaliated against, he won.

hicks was an African American supervisor, he was fired from his position, not a good person and you don't do this and this, fired me because I was black and not because I am a bad employee, courts said as you alleged, there are a lot of other supervisors that are the same situation you are in but they are white and they still work there, remanded it, they said because of this and this and that is why we fired them, courts said ok then that is fine.

Plaintiff employee, a white female adjunct instructor, sued defendant employer, a community college, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., for alleged race and sex discrimination in the employer's hiring of an African-American male to fill a full-time tenure-track position. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the employer. The employee appealed.

The school boards' maternity leave regulations required arbitrary dates for when a pregnant teacher had to cease teaching due to her pregnancy. The Court held that the freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life was one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The arbitrary cutoff dates embodied in the mandatory leave rules had no rational relationship to the valid state interest of preserving continuity of instruction, and allowing the individual teacher the choice to set firm dates later in pregnancy would serve the boards' objectives, while not violating the teachers' exercise of constitutionally protected freedom. The Court held that while it might be easier for the school boards to conclusively presume that all pregnant women were unfit to teach past a certain date, administrative convenience alone was insufficient to make valid what otherwise was unconstitutional. The Court also held that any school board regulations which arbitrarily limited the teachers' right to return to teaching suffered from the same constitutional deficiencies that plagued the presumption in the termination rules.

women live longer, lots of employees are women, charge them more money for their benefits package, courts said stop marrying women, can't charge them more money because they are female.

worked for a paper company, let him go months before he qualified for full pension with the company, firing him when they fired him, saved the company a ton of money, not able to prove that his age was the reason, technical term, he was screwed because he could not prove it

working for private school, believed the dismissal was for impermissible reasons, that is ok, not a public entity, if they don't like the way you act and it violates religious principles, they may dismiss you

from texas, someone who worked for the community college, he was dismissed from his position, worked a number of years in this system, did not have tenure, he was able to point to an official document that the community college released, saying that they do not provide tenure but instructors may stay here as long as they wish, courts said his free speech needs to be sent back to the lower courts, he did not have tenure, but had a document that establishment re employment

school board will be considered an impartial judge of the case -Burden of proof

you look at what is being provided to the board, all the facts, disputed, court said you do not have to prove it totally, most of the evidence says the board is in the right

Incompetency- people go in and look at the classroom and cannot figure out what the person is trying to teach, control of classroom is poor

Immorality - ask denton, you know your student is pregnant, you are the dad

Insubordination -wilder decided to show rated r movies, and was told stop doing it, he did not stop doing it, fired

Philadelphia police department, harsh treatment of minorities, their treatment of white people and black people is different, sued the mayor, court said it is the police department, but it is individual police officers who are at fault not the mayor.

standard to which we hold school boards is one of common sense, clearly established laws, violate them, can be held responsible.

big violation, get a lot of money for it

suit that was brought against them, workers being mistreated, not able to prove case in court, garment company went and sued the eeoc and they want all the charges paid for bringing the lawsuit, court said if they allowed that, then you would be putting a dampening influence on people's ability to sue