Vice Principal's Flawless Career Ends For Strip-Searching Students
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 26, 2017
Other Education Criminal Juvenile Law Civil & Human Rights Civil Rights
Summary: Blog post about a veteran vice principal who was fired for ordering female students to be strip searched.
If you have a question or concern about special education law, vice principal and school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .
In the case of Rogers v. Board of Education, an assistant principal appealed from the Superior Court’s dismissal of an appeal to the board of education’s decision to terminate her employment. When review an administrative agency, like the school board, a court’s discretion is limited. Judicial review of the school board's administrative decision follows established principles of administrative law. The court's ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the board has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion. Conclusions of law reached by the board must stand if the court determines that they resulted from a correct application of the law to the facts found and could reasonably and logically flow from such facts.
The assistant principal ordered female students searched at school. The students were strip searched. An independent hearing panel found the assistant principal knew or should have known something was amiss, and should have immediately checked to see what was going on in the office where the children were being searched. The panel concluded the assistant principal was not culpable and recommended she not be punished. Defendant board of education (board) rejected those recommendations and terminated plaintiff's employment. The court affirmed, holding that the board properly relied on the majority findings of the panel; properly rejected the majority's conclusion that plaintiff was not incompetent or insubordinate; that the board had not been influenced by the parents of some of the students involved in the search incident. The termination of plaintiff's contract did not, as a matter of law, require more than a single act of incompetence or inefficiency.
The court affirmed the decision of the superior court, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the board of education's decision to terminate the assistant principal’s employment on the basis of incompetence and other due and sufficient cause, and that a single incident can, as a matter of law, justify termination.
If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.
Source: Rogers v. Board of Educ., 252 Conn. 753, 749 A.2d 1173, 2000 Conn. LEXIS 136, 141 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P58,954 (Conn. 2000)
