Mary Martin, a female, tenured teacher in a rural district, was stopped by the local police and charged with driving under the influence. She explained to the police that she had just left a Christmas party given by her principal and that she only consumed a few glasses of wine. She was also aware that some of her male colleagues were stopped in the past, but none charged. Nevertheless, she was still charged. As her arrest becomes public, there is pressure from the school board for her to resign.
1. Can the board force Martin to resign? Why or why not?
2. Is the infraction serious enough to warrant dismissal? Why or why not?
3. What rights does Martin have as a teacher in this situation?
4. What conclusion do you think the court would reach in this situation? Provide a rationale for your response.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Laura will respond to this
ReplyDelete1. I do not believe that the board can force her to retire. It may be considered discrimination since there was no action taken against the male teachers who were also pulled over in the past. The difference however is that she was charged and they were not.
ReplyDelete2. I do not believe that this is a serious enough infraction to warrant her dismissal. The important thing to realize here is that although teachers know they are going to be held to higher standards than others in the community, they still have legal rights to personal privacy.
3. I feel that the courts will side with Ms. Martin and would not allow the school board to make her resign. I believe that depending on what district one worked in and what area, the situation would be held and looked at differently by the public. I believe that if there is not a district policy that states that a teacher must resign if charged with drinking and driving that they should not be able to make her leave.
4. I honestly think that the courts would side with Ms. Martin based on the right to privacy. The situation should not impact her daily duties and expectations as an educator. I think that the district may have a situation on their hands based on discrimination if she is reprimanded for her actions and the gentlemen are not.
1. The Board can force her to resign if the behavior meets the standards for unprofessional conduct or unfitness, the teacher may be dismissed. Community norms and expectations regarding professional behavior of teachers are important considerations in cases involving alleged immoral conduct and dismissal.
ReplyDelete2. I do not believe this infraction is serious enough to warrant dismissal as it occured outside of school and should not directly impact their ability to perform their duties.
3. Ms. Martin would be provided due proces rights.
4. The courts could support the Board if they asked her to resign only if the were able to show that it went against their view of professionalism and conduct as a teacher.
1. The board can possibly dismiss her for unprofessional conduct, immorality or unfitness.
ReplyDelete2. Not in my opinion. Other teachers have participated in this activity that was sponsored by a school administrator.
3. Ms Martin still retains her due process rights.
4. The courts will probably up hold the districts decision. Mary ability to teach can be viewed as damaged and that it is the board to determine the overall fitness of its employees.
1.The Board can force Ms. Martin to resign if her behavior meets the standards for unprofessional conduct or unfitness and interferes with her ability to teach and for her students to learn. Rumors and suspicion may inhibit the learning process, thereby rendering her ineffective as a teacher. Ms. Martin should expect that there are inherent norms and expectations regarding professional behavior of teachers. In cases involving alleged immoral or illegal conduct dismissal is always a possible outcome.
ReplyDelete2.The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution protects teachers from discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin (Essex, 2012). It should also be noted that teachers do have a right to privacy. However, courts will often support disciplinary action taken by a school district when a teacher's private life affects the integrity of the school district or the effectiveness by which a teacher can teach. Ms. Martin’s infraction could cause enough disruption that the courts would uphold the school board’s decision if her dismissal were carried out with proper procedure.
3.Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that it is an unlawful employment practice for any employer to discriminate against an individual based on the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of the individual. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 made to the Civil Rights Act provides additional protection for employees of educational institutions that receive federal financial assistance. Ms. Martin may bring a cause of action under section 1983, Title 42, of the United States Code for deprivation of rights under the Equal Protection Clause. However, she would have a difficult time proving that the school board had the deliberate intent to discriminate against her by not dismissing male colleagues accused of the same infractions.
4. In the state of Tennessee, a teacher's certificate may be revoked if he or she is found guilty of immoral or illegal conduct. Teachers may be dismissed or suspended on similar grounds, including incompetence, inefficiency, neglect of duty, unprofessional conduct, and insubordination (McCarthy, Cambron-McCabe, 1992). The DUI charge would most likely qualify as unprofessional conduct. Ms. Martin has the right to due process and a hearing before termination.
5.The court would most likely subject Ms. Martin’s case to several litmus tests. The first would be the presumption test, which presumes a person innocence until proven guilty. The courts would be interested in whether Ms. Martin had been dismissed before or after her hearing for the charges of DUI. Dismissing her before an actual court hearing would violate her constitutional rights. Next, the court would examine whether her substantive and procedural due process rights have been violated. Substantive and procedural due process rights include the right of a teacher to receive notice of termination and provides them the right to a hearing in circumstances such as the one described above. Due process does not give reasons why a teacher may be dismissed. It only prescribes the procedures a school must follow to dismiss a teacher. Ms. Martin is a tenured teacher, therefor, the school must show cause in order to dismiss her and follow a specific procedure in order to do so.
6.The United States Supreme Court case of Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill (1985) is the leading case involving the question of what process is due under the Constitution. This case provides that a tenured teacher must be given oral or written notice of the dismissal and the charges against him or her, an explanation of the evidence obtained by the employer, and an opportunity for a fair and meaningful hearing. Considering the information provided in the case study, I think the court would find that Ms. Martin did not receive due process and was dismissed before conviction. The court would find her dismissal unlawful due ONLY to procedural errors by the school board.