William Allan Kritsonis, PhD

Professor

Public School Law & Educational Laws and Policies

PERSONNEL ISSUES

INTRODUCTION

Case One
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit

JETT, Plaintiff-Appellant
v.

DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant- Appellate

No. 87-2084

LITIGANTS

Plantiff- Apellate: Jett

Defendant-Appellate: Dallas Independent School District

BACKGROUND

Jett, a white male, was hired as a teacher, athletic director, and head football
coach at a predominately black high school in the Dallas Independent School District. Jett
had repeated clashes with the high schools principal, Todd, a black man over the policies
of the school and the football program. Principal Todd recommended that Jett be ridded
of his duties of athletic director and coach. The superintendent followed Todds
recommendation and placed Jett at another school as a teacher.

FACTS

Jett alleged that Todds recommendations were racially motivated and that DISD through
Todd and Wright (superintendent) had discriminated against him. Jett brought this trial to
District court.
 DECISION

The District court jury upheld the law in Jetts favor and honored Jett through the
42 U.S. C. 1981 and 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause.

DICTA

The Court of Appeals found the Districts court jurys instructions to the liability
were deficient. There were many errors in the jurys decisions. They held that: (1) A
municipality (i.e. school district) may not be held liable for its employees' violations of
1981 under a respondent superior theory; (2) Court of Appeals would use the principles
enunciated in Monell, supra, and clarified in Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U. S. 469, and
St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U. S. 112, to determine whether or not Superintendent Wright
had the authority under Texas law in the area of employee transfers, and if so, they would
decide whether a new trial is required to determine the DISD's responsibility for the
actions of Principal Todd in light of this determination.

IMPLICATIONS

Jetts argument was to prove that Jett had been treated unfairly on the basis of
racial influence. The Court Appeals reviewed the inconsistencies of the jury and District
Court in regards to the aforementioned case.

PERSONNEL ISSUES

INTRODUCTION

Case Two

LITIGANTS

LEWIS ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS
 PASADENA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, NELDA SULLIVAN,, VICKIE
MORGAN, TED SULLIVAN, CARMEN OROZCO, BOB BLAIR, MARSHALL
KENDRICK, JR., FRED ROBERTS and FREDRICK SCHNEIDER, Defendants-
Appellants.

BACKGROUND

On November 6, 1995, Anderson filed suit, alleging that the defendants took
adverse employment action against him because he opposed a school bond election and
an administrative reorganization. He claimed violation of his free speech rights, and
asserted state law claims as well.

FACTS

The defendants moved that the court case to be dismissed, due to qualified
immunity. The court asked Anderson to replead his case. Anderson repled his case. The
defendants moved for dismissal of the case for a second time. The case was dismissed,
and Lewis Anderson moved for his federal claims against the Pasadena Independent
School District, superintendent, and specific board members. The defendants also
appealed a monetary sanction that was related to an order for remand to state court.

DECISION

The District Court dismissed Andersons case. This caused Anderson to appeal.
Also, the defendants in the case were issue a type of monetary sanction, of which they
wanted removed.

DICTA

The judgment appealed was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to
the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The Court of
Appeals dismissed the case.
 IMPLICATIONS

Andersons experience highlights the importance of strict data that refers the case
in question. The case was dismissed due to many factors.