Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 8:33:32 GMT -6
Too bad Mr. Burgess isn't on our forum..Looks like he could get some pretty good free legal advice..
|
|
|
Post by dive61364 on Jan 18, 2015 8:40:58 GMT -6
seeing that the school board president is a practicing attorney I would think the board would have followed the correct procedure to fire this teacher. all the details concerning this teachers firing will not be released in case there is a legal appeal.
|
|
|
Post by roman on Jan 18, 2015 9:03:57 GMT -6
seeing that the school board president is a practicing attorney I would think the board would have followed the correct procedure to fire this teacher. all the details concerning this teachers firing will not be released in case there is a legal appeal. Both teacher tenure law and First Amendment law are very specialized areas of law. There are probably fewer than 20 lawyers in the state who understand both areas of law. None of those lawyers live in Ottawa. Like the medical field, the legal field has become highly specialized.
|
|
|
Post by dive61364 on Jan 18, 2015 9:38:49 GMT -6
seeing that the school board president is a practicing attorney I would think the board would have followed the correct procedure to fire this teacher. all the details concerning this teachers firing will not be released in case there is a legal appeal. Both teacher tenure law and First Amendment law are very specialized areas of law. There are probably fewer than 20 lawyers in the state who understand both areas of law. None of those lawyers live in Ottawa. Like the medical field, the legal field has become highly specialized. thanks for clarifying this for me roman. I did know that attorneys specialize in certain areas of law. I didn't realize there was an area just applying to this.
|
|
|
Post by roman on Jan 18, 2015 11:44:48 GMT -6
Both teacher tenure law and First Amendment law are very specialized areas of law. There are probably fewer than 20 lawyers in the state who understand both areas of law. None of those lawyers live in Ottawa. Like the medical field, the legal field has become highly specialized. thanks for clarifying this for me roman. I did know that attorneys specialize in certain areas of law. I didn't realize there was an area just applying to this. There are around four law firms that represent four to five hundred of the eight hundred some school districts in the state. Most of the successful dismissals of tenured teachers were handled by one of those firms. At one point, I had handled more successful tenured teacher dismissal cases that went to hearing than any lawyer in the state: two community college cases and ten public school cases. I lost one. The Tenure Act has been improved to lessen some of its problems, but the procedure can still be very long and very costly. I had one case which took up twenty-five days of hearings. The procedure starts with a hearing before an arbitrator. After the arbitrator renders his or her decision, it can be appealed via Administrative Review in Circuit Court. Next, the case can be appealed to the Appellate Court and possibly the state Supreme Court. It is not unusual for the entire process to take three or more years. If the teacher wins, he/she is entitled to back pay. Quite apart from state courts, a teacher can file a federal civil rights suit. If the teacher prevails there, the school is required to pay the teacher's legal fees. Also, both actual and punitive damages are possible. In the Whitaker case, the court awarded punitive damages against the superintendent. Under law, the superintendent could not be reimbursed by the district.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 11:47:34 GMT -6
Look up the two cases I mentioned above. Both of them are probably on the net. Next, read the following language in light of those two cases. "On Dec. 22, 2009, while (Mr.) Burgess was employed by the Board as a teacher he was issued a Notice to Remedy. The Notice to Remedy was issued based on (Mr.) Burgess’ inappropriate and unprofessional communications towards the board and superintendent. The Notice to Remedy directed (Mr.) Burgess to: (a) cease and desist from any further displays of anger in front of staff, parents, students, members of the board of education, or the public with regard to any matter having a nexus to the school district, (b) cease and desist from referring to staff, parents, students or members of the board of education in a derogatory, inappropriate or unprofessional manner... ." A quick review of both cases above reveals the affirmation of the rights of teachers to voice their opinions on matters of demonstrable public concern. However, the first case sure had a wingnut of a teacher as a centerpiece. Doesn't the OTHS teacher's behavioral reprimands and obvious obfuscation/denial of recent events to his superiors "wear a different jacket" than the civil rights violations mentioned in the cases you offered for review?
|
|
|
Post by roman on Jan 18, 2015 12:10:10 GMT -6
Look up the two cases I mentioned above. Both of them are probably on the net. Next, read the following language in light of those two cases. "On Dec. 22, 2009, while (Mr.) Burgess was employed by the Board as a teacher he was issued a Notice to Remedy. The Notice to Remedy was issued based on (Mr.) Burgess’ inappropriate and unprofessional communications towards the board and superintendent. The Notice to Remedy directed (Mr.) Burgess to: (a) cease and desist from any further displays of anger in front of staff, parents, students, members of the board of education, or the public with regard to any matter having a nexus to the school district, (b) cease and desist from referring to staff, parents, students or members of the board of education in a derogatory, inappropriate or unprofessional manner... ." A quick review of both cases above reveals the affirmation of the rights of teachers to voice their opinions on matters of demonstrable public concern. However, the first case sure had a wingnut of a teacher as a centerpiece. Doesn't the OTHS teacher's behavioral reprimands and obvious obfuscation/denial of recent events to his superiors "wear a different jacket" than the civil rights violations mentioned in the cases you offered for review? Your one sentence summary is a fair summary of the cases. Note that the teacher here was warned not to say anything derogatory about the Board. There is no way such a sweeping prohibition would stand judicial scrutiny. Also, the sheer volume of reprimands means nothing if you do not know exactly what he said. In other words, were his past comments private grievances or did they fall into areas of public concern? (Connick case) The problem with what I have seen of the so-called particulars are that they are vague and conclusory. The underlying problem with the case is that the guy has had a long-standing problem with the board and superintendent. In such cases, the courts look long and hard at whether the guy is really being punished for his activities in the strike and his complaints about the superintendent. At one time, the IEA used to preach to its members that one of the best ways to develop job security was to be an outspoken union leader. By doing so, they preached, First Amendment concerns will ward off disciplinary actions. Finally, as I mentioned in a previous post, the act which led to his dismissal took place in a union meeting. It will be interesting to see what language the superintendent used in his meetings with the teacher. In the Whitaker case, the superintendent told the teacher: "[y]our rights stop at the end of my nose." That statement did not go over well with the court.
|
|