California Business Litigation Blog

A former Illinois college staff member is suing her ex-employer. Discrimination and retaliation are the dual legal bases of a lawsuit filed by former Richland Community College registrar JoAnn Wirey.

The current legal controversy began over four years ago when Wirey was diagnosed with mononucleosis. The debilitating blood disorder is characterized by lethargy and chronic fatigue.

Despite medical documentation of health contraindications, Wirey was charged with “insubordination” for failing to work on Saturdays. Consequently, she invoked the protective legal provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA“). This federal law requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for disabled workers.

Shortly after filing suit, Wirey was disciplined for posing in a picture alongside an adult male student whose abdomen was partially exposed. Next, she was sanctioned for stating that foreign students needed American sponsorship to avert another 9/11 catastrophe.

Wirey initiated formal grievances immediately after both incidents. Soon afterward, she was suspended for allegedly advising a student’s mother that the pupil’s grades were “none of [the mother’s] business.”

While suspended, Wirey was accused of grade altering. One month later, she was finally dismissed after refusing to waive her right to appeal the disciplinary actions.

Wirey further alleged that the college provided a derogatory job reference to the school district. Legal pleadings posit that this action was retaliatory and resulted in Wirey’s rejection for a teaching position. Court documents disclose that Wirey received consistently positive employee performance evaluations prior to the litigation.

Patience is a virtue in academic, pecuniary, and altruistic contexts alike. College officials may have been well advised to wait and “bide time.” Even if entirely appropriate, disciplinary actions can have devastating impact by creating inaccurate impressions and negative perceptions.

Avoiding every appearance of impropriety is often more prudent than taking immediate remedial measures. Effective administrators must accurately assess and act in accordance with the totality of all relevant circumstances.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently overruled a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a former school district employee who had been fired for sitting next to her boss in public.

In 2004, the Washoe County School Board publicly convened in Reno, Nevada to announce its decision to terminate the employment of general counsel Jeffrey Blanck. Providing moral support, administrative assistant Katherine Nichols sat stoically beside him without uttering a single word.

The next day, Nichols was offered a difficult choice: demotion or early retirement. After accepting the latter "option," she filed suit. In dismissing her case, a federal District Court reasoned that the district had a legitimate interest in preventing "disruptive" employee conduct.

Last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Nichols' lawsuit. Judge Margaret McKeown noted the absence of any evidence of possible disloyalty or disruption that sitting next to one's boss in public portends.

The court ruled that actual disruption or its reasonable anticipation is the only permissible grounds for disrupting public employment.

In a related opinion released in June, the US Supreme Court espoused restricted First Amendment rights for outspoken public servants who openly complain about workplace issues.

The Court recognized an exception for speech that pertains to matters of vital public import, however. In fact, the entire legal basis of Nichols' original claims rested upon this "public interest" immunity against official reprisals.

This type of employment controversy lies within the proper definition of "speech." Can tacit actions such as taking a certain seat constitute "speech”? Just how far should the concept of “expression” be extended? What constitutes valid grounds to terminate public employment?

This case is a prime example of why private and public employers, especially school districts which often manage and make decisions by committee need to tread carefully.

Continue reading "Court of Appeals Reinstates Nevada School Administrator’s Lawsuit" »

An official state investigation in Georgia revealed the routine falsification of student test scores by Atlanta public school officials. A long-standing history of problems within that city’s public schools apparently prompted these improprieties.

Reportedly, nearly 200 faculty members at 44 different schools perpetrated the fraud. Nearly half of the culprits have confessed in the scandalous aftermath.

Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed referred to this outrage as a “dark day” for his city’s public schools. Reed further noted that it represented a severe leadership failure that negatively impacted thousands of pupils.

Endemic fear of reprisals apparently facilitated the fraud’s longevity. Now that the cat is out of the bag, many will lose their positions. In addition, most of the co-conspirators now face criminal prosecutions throughout three surrounding counties.

This shocking revelation comes as no surprise to cynical commentators. Numerous reports by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had previously spawned widespread suspicion about highly improbable pupil performance levels. Such questions sparked the state investigation that ultimately disclosed numerous test answer erasures.

Endemic educator falsifications have fueled rampant rifts among local religious and business leaders. A turbulent tug-of-war over power among school board members has also ignited.

The cumulative detriment to students affected by the artificial score alterations is hard to quantify. Investigators estimate that as many as 12,000 remedial pupils’ test scores were tampered with.

Parental reactions reflect a mixture of emotions. Adults expressed empathy for teachers coerced into cooperating with and covering up the scandal and concerns over their children’s quality of education.

Continue reading "Cheating Scandal Catches Atlanta Educators With Raised Hands and Red Faces " »

Recently released federal correspondence charged officials of the Tehachapi Unified School District in central California with gross negligence. The letter alleged that educators failed to properly respond to and rectify repeated harassment complaints from a 13-year-old student.

The relentless taunting resulted from the boy’s alleged homosexuality. Last September, the student killed himself in response to intolerable social isolation. Consequently, his mother filed a federal civil rights action against the school district.

Her litigation sparked an in-depth governmental investigation. The official conclusion was that school authorities had indeed shirked their legal duty to protect its pupil against "persistent, pervasive and often severe sex-based harassment."

A report by the US Dept. of Justice revealed that the student endured more than two years of malicious taunting, inappropriate touching, and having objects hurled at him. Conditions became so severe that he stopped donning gymnasium attire in the locker room. He feared assaults from fellow classmates.

The vice-principal once dismissed such complaints by citing the “difficult age” of students and his inability to change inherent attitudes instilled by their parents.

In another instance, the principal asked Seth to point out his harassers from school yearbook pictures. He took no further action, however, because the boy could not recite his harassers‘ names.

In partial settlement of this case, the school district agreed to retrain faculty and staff and to submit to several years of intensive monitoring of its anti-harassment remedial efforts. The school district Superintendent expressed positive anticipation about these changes.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney James Gillian represents the boy’s mother. Gilliam expressed being “ecstatic” over the official confirmation of his client’s allegations. He further posited that this case will set a precedent by sending the message to school officials throughout the entire nation that they have a positive duty to protect pupils.