A Louisiana state appeals court has affirmed a lower court’s ruling that a school district is not liable for the decision of a principal to relieve a tenured teacher of his responsibilities as athletic director and head football coach because she “acted within her authority.”
Plaintiff Terry Washington began his employment as a certified teacher at Scotlandville Magnet High School in August 2001. Three years later, he was appointed as the school’s athletic director and head football coach. During the fall of 2004, Washington became concerned about what he believed to be mismanagement of school funds by the principal’s office. Washington said that when he reported the alleged mismanagement of school funds to Principal Mary McManus on March 28, 2005, the principal threatened to fire him. The next day, she wrote to him, informing him that he would no longer be athletic director for the upcoming 2005-2006 school year.
On January 23, 2006, Washington sued the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, alleging that he was wrongfully removed as AD and coach and that he should be reinstated to those positions with back pay and “all other distinctions” of the positions.
Further, he alleged that he was removed in retaliation for questions he raised as to possible improprieties relating to funds generated through athletic events and various fundraising sources. This, he claimed, constituted “a termination of his professional employment without proper notification.”
Specifically, he alleged that his removal came without notice and a hearing, and that it: “(1) violated state law, for which the School Board is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior; (2) violated procedural and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, made actionable by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because he was not provided with a hearing and because his removal was arbitrary, capricious, and not reasonably related to legitimate governmental interests; and (3) was in retaliation for his reports of alleged mismanagement of money at the school in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Louisiana Constitution.”
In 2010, a trial court granted the School Board’s motion for involuntary dismissal and dismissed Washington’s claims with prejudice. Washington appealed.
The appeals court noted that in Tate v. Livingston Parish School Board, 444 So. 2d 219, 221 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1983), writ denied, 446 So. 2d 314 (La. 1984), a teacher who is also “employed as a coach by a school board has two sets of rights: (1) his position as a ‘teacher’ is protected by tenure (if he has acquired tenure status); and (2) his position as ‘coach’ is protected by the contract he has, if one exists, to perform coaching duties, but not by tenure. Tate, 444 So. 2d at 221.
“In the instant case, Washington acknowledged that his tenured teaching position with the School Board was not terminated. Rather, Washington remained a certified, tenure teacher at Scotlandville High, and Principal McManus merely removed Washington from, or did not renew, the supplemental assignments of coach and athletic director for the next school year. Because these supplemental assignments are not protected by the Teacher Tenure Law, the removal of Washington from the position as coach, and also in this case athletic director, did not require compliance with the provisions of the Teacher Tenure Law, including LSA-R.S. 17:444. See Tate, 444 So. 2d at 221.
“We also reject Washington’s contention that he was removed from these supplemental positions in violation of LSA-R.S. 17:81.5. This statute provides that each city and parish school board shall develop and adopt rules and policies ‘which it shall use in dismissing school employees who have not attained tenure in accordance with applicable provisions of law and whose dismissal is not a result of a reduction in force.’ At the outset, we note that, as stated above, Washington was not dismissed as an employee of the School Board, nor was his teaching position at Scotlandville High terminated. Rather, he was denied the opportunity to continue to hold the supplemental positions of coach and athletic director. The testimony of record reveals that in the East Baton Rouge Parish School
System, coaching positions and other extracurricular assignments, for which a stipend or supplement is paid, are assigned by the principal of each respective school. The decision not to reappoint a teacher to such supplemental assignments does not in any way terminate the teacher’s position with the School Board.”
The appeals court also ruled against Washington on his claim that the district violated “his procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution on the basis that he was not provided with a hearing and that his removal was arbitrary, capricious, and not reasonably related to legitimate governmental interests.” The plaintiff “failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had a protected property interest in the continuation or renewal of the supplementary assignments of head football coach and athletic director,” held the panel.
As to the claim of retaliation, the appeals court seemed to find that claim moot, labeling the principal’s decision about “supplemental positions” as discretionary in nature.
“The assignment of these duties, for which no certification is required, involves an administrative function that the School Board has delegated to its principals. In having its principals perform these administrative functions, the School Board has clearly delegated decision-making authority to its principals for their individual schools. … (I)n deciding to whom such supplemental duties should be assigned, Principal McManus was merely applying the policy directing her to assign extra-curricular and supplemental duties within Scotlandville High, rather than establishing any rules, regulations, or policy for the School Board. Although McManus’s application of this School Board policy may have been improperly motivated in violation of Washington’s right to free speech, we are constrained by the precepts noted above to conclude that Washington has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Principal McManus possessed final policy-making authority in the area of extra-curricular or coaching assignments such that the School Board could be held liable for her actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus, we likewise are constrained to find no error in the involuntary dismissal of Washington’s retaliation claim.”
Terry Washington v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board; Ct. App.La., 1st Cir.; Number 2011 CA 1703, 2011 1703 (La.App. 1 Cir. 05/14/12); 2012 La. App. Unpub.
LEXIS 315; 5/14/12
Attorneys of record: (for plaintiff/appellant) J. Arthur Smith, III, Seth M. Dornier, Baton Rouge, LA, (for defendant/appellee) Kenneth F. Sills, Baton Rouge, LA.
