Grant v. Elmore County. Bd. of Educ., (U.S. 11th Cir., Alabama, Jan. 2023)
BACKGROUND: Fagale Grant, and African American female who formerly worked as a teacher, claims race and age discrimination. Grant argues that she presented a “convincing mosaic” of circumstantial evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to infer that the School District intentionally discriminated against her based on her race and that led to the termination of her employment.
EVIDENCE: Grant was aware that the School Superintendent annually distributed a memorandum in February asking teachers whether they would return the following school year, which enabled the School District to identify upcoming vacancies, advertise those positions, and hire as needed. Having decided in December 2016 to retire, Grant responded to the Superintendent’s inquiry by indicating that she would retire and by providing a letter affirming this decision. At the time, Grant took no affirmative steps to rescind this or to inform that her retirement was contingent upon receiving a disability retirement. Later, Grant claimed disability and pressed for relief, but was terminated.
COURT HOLDING: The Court reasoned that it presumes resignations are voluntary unless an employer forces the employee to resign by coercion, duress, or misrepresentation of a material fact. There are several factors a court should consider in evaluating whether a resignation was forced, including whether the employee: (1) was given some alternative to resignation; (2) understood the nature of the choice given; (3) had a reasonable time in which to choose; (4) was allowed to choose the effective date of the resignation; and (5) had the advice of counsel. Here the Court concluded that considering the totality of her own action in response to a typical annual contract by the Superintendent, and was not a result of coercion, duress, or misrepresentation of a material fact. The School wins.
Doe v. Greenville City Sch., (Ohio Sup. Ct., Dec. 2022)
BACKGROUND: High-school students and their parents brought negligence action against School District, alleging that injuries the students sustained when alcohol caught fire in a science classroom were caused by negligent supervision and by the failure to provide a fire extinguisher or other safety equipment in the classroom.
EVIDENCE: The students alleged that the School negligently caused their injuries when they suffered severe burns in December 2019 after a bottle of isopropyl alcohol caught fire and exploded in a science class. The students alleged in part that the School failed to provide proper safety equipment, “especially, but not limited to, a fire extinguisher inside the classroom, failed to ensure that there were proper safety features and protocols in place, failed to properly supervise and protect them, and more.” It was disputed that there were no fire extinguishers in the classroom at the time. The School asserted that it was immune from liability.
COURT HOLDING: The Court noted that political subdivisions and their employees are generally immune from liability related to government functions and thus have a complete defense from negligence claims. However, the Court noted there are exceptions, such as claims regarding injuries that are caused by the negligence of government employees and that occur within or on the grounds of, and are due to physical defects within or on the grounds of, buildings that are used in connection with the performance of a governmental function. The Court went on to determine that the lack of safety equipment or other safety features could amount to a physical defect and that the absence of a fire extinguisher or other safety equipment within a science classroom could be a physical defect such that an exception to immunity could exist. The students win and the claims are allowed to go forward.
Hartman v. Putman City. Bd. of Educ., (W. Va. Sup. Ct., Oct. 2022)
BACKGROUND: Hartman sued the School Board on a complaint that the Board violated the Open Governmental Proceedings Act through electronic discussions between all Board members in regard to a threatened work stoppage.
EVIDENCE: In February 2019, West Virginia’s pubic school teachers were threatening to strike and force a work stoppage. The night before the work stoppage, school board members in the Putnam County District had a group electronic conversation in which they generally discussed (1) the likely duration of the impending work stoppage; (2) the possibility of picketing at schools; (3) the number of school districts that might close during the work stoppage; and (4) statements made by, and the demeanor of, people attending a publicly held Board meeting. The suggestion was also made that it might be best to close Putnam County’s schools. The next day, fifty-four of West Virginia’s fifty-five county school districts closed their schools, but not Putnam County. In April 2019, Hartman sued the Board on claim of violation of Open Meetings Act in their discussion of whether to close school.
COURT HOLDING: The Court explains that the Act defines a “meeting” as “the convening of a governing body of a public agency… in order to make a decision, or to deliberate toward a decision, on any matter which results in an official action,” and that discussions “by telephone conference or other electronic means” may constitute a “meeting”. However, the Board asserted that since the authority to close schools rested solely with the Superintendent, the Board’s electronic dicussions were not “meetings” under the Act because they could never have resulted “in an official action.” The Court agreed, finding that because the Board did not have the authority to take official action regarding the temporary closing of the County’s schools, any conversation between the Board’s members and the Superintendent regarding the closing of Putnam County Schools was not a “meeting” as defined by the Act. The School wins.