 |
Certified, Qualified...but "Unsuitable"
by V. Wayne Young, Executive Director |
The Kentucky Court of Appeals has upheld the right of superintendents to exercise their discretion in making employment decisions based upon the “suitability” of candidates for certified vacancies. While the case is narrow in its application, it serves to remind superintendents that they have a right and a duty to make an ultimate determination about a prospective employee’s suitability for employment, in spite of his or her legal qualifications.
In Roberts v. Fayette County Board of Education, a limited contract special education teacher received an unsatisfactory evaluation, from which he filed an appeal. The local appeals panel did not make a final decision on his appeal, but instead requested that the superintendent undertake additional investigation of the matter. The principal recommended that Roberts not be rehired.
After the principal’s recommendation, but prior to April 30th, Roberts resigned from his position. He stated that he did so because of the local district policy disqualifying from future employment any limited contract teacher who was nonrenewed “for cause.” (Note: That policy was not challenged in the lawsuit.) He testified that he had been advised that his resignation prior to nonrenewal would prevent this policy from being applied to him.
Roberts re-applied for employment in subsequent years, but was never rehired. However, the district hired several emergency-certified special education teachers during that period. Roberts filed suit, claiming that, as a fully certified teacher, pursuant to KRS 161.100, he was entitled to employment before any emergency teachers were hired.
KRS 161.100 does not relate to hiring, but states that emergency certificates may be issued when the Education Professional Standards Board is satisfied that “it is impossible to secure qualified teachers for a position in a school.” That statute is associated with an administrative regulation, 16 KAR 2:120, which defines a “qualified teacher” one who holds “appropriate certification for the position unless the superintendent of the employing school district has documented evidence that the teacher is unsuitable for employment.”
The Court of Appeals stated that the case was “replete with evidence” that Roberts was unsuitable, citing formal complaints from students, his unsatisfactory evaluation, and the principal’s recommendation not to rehire him. The court also found that Roberts had offered no evidence that the superintendent had “abused her discretion” in finding him unsuitable to teach.
This case reaffirms the principle that superintendents have clear legal authority to refuse to employ unsuitable candidates for any certified teaching or administrative position, provided they have appropriate evidence of that unsuitability.
-10/10/2006
|
More
Benefits
