GAE Legal Wins
CHEMISTRY TEACHER NOT LIABLE FOR STUDENT INJURIES
The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that a DeKalb chemistry teacher was not personally liable for a student’s severe burns to his face, neck, arms, and back. The student sued, seeking compensation for his injuries. The Appeals Court ruled the teacher was immune from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of her official duties, and done without willfulness, or malice. Blowe v. Roberts A23A1470, A23A1471 (March 7, 2024). Click to read the decision. Learn more about public schools and immunity https://tinyurl.com/2u4cjkae.
GAE Joins “Controversial Issues” Lawsuit
A lawsuit was filed against Cobb County Schools on behalf of GAE, Katie Rinderle, and Tonya Grimmke, a current Cobb County educator. You may recall that Ms. Rinderle was fired in August 2023 for reading the book My Shadow is Purple, to her fifth-grade class. The complaint describes how the district’s policies on “controversial issues” have been used to unlawfully discipline educators for mentioning LGBTQ+ and gender-nonconforming people and their experiences in the classroom. The lawsuit seeks an injunction blocking the enforcement of the district’s censorship policies, as well as damages and additional relief for Rinderle, including her reinstatement. Click here to read the suit.
PSC Win!
The Commission alleged that GAE and Glynn County member Alicia Andrews (pictured above) physically abused and behaved unprofessionally with students. After a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the court found Ms. Andrews was a “compassionate educator who cared for her students. The overwhelming weight of the evidence demonstrated that [Ms. Andrews] was a beloved and respected educator.” Accordingly, all of the charges were dismissed. “I am so thankful that GAE heard my cry for help because, during this dark stage in my life, no one was listening. No one heard my voice but GAE legal services and my awesome GAE network attorney.”
Click here https://online.flippingbook.com/view/860648829/ to read the decision.
GAE Wins State Board Reversal For Muscogee County Member Jamal Harris
GAE beat nearly insurmountable odds by convincing the State Board of Education that Muscogee County Schools did not have any evidence to impose a one-day suspension and a letter of reprimand. Under Georgia’s strict standard of appellate review, the State Board must affirm the local decision if there is “any evidence” to support the school district’s decision. To understand just how harsh the “any evidence” rule is, consider that the school district could lose nine out of ten charges; the State Board would be required to affirm the local board’s decision based on at least some evidence of the remaining charge. Congratulations to GAE network attorney Julie Oinonen. You can read the decision at https://gae.org/sites/gae/files/2023-07/harris-reversal.pdf.
We Will Not Go Back
As reported in the Spring 2023 issue of the KNOW magazine, Chief Judge Dwayne H. Gillis found Charlton County Schools in willful contempt of the Court’s Order and awarded GAE $11,935.00 for the school system’s bad faith actions causing unnecessary trouble and expenses—Dr. Sherilonda Green v. Charlton County School District, case number 2022-SU-CV-01112.
However, Charlton County Schools continues to withhold evidence in an effort to cover up their systemic race discrimination and blatantly discriminatory hiring practices against Dr. Sherilonda Green. On June 28, 2023, GAE’s network attorney filed a motion for Charlton County’s Electronically Stored Information (ESI) expert to provide the cell phones of school officials as he was directed to do initially in February 2022! You can read the Motion at https://gae.org/sites/gae/files/2023-07/green-vs.-charlton-cnty.pdf.
Fair Dismissal Act Litigation
Rebecca Barnes, GAE v. Bobby Bearden, Richard Woods, et al. This case was initially filed in 2018 on behalf of GAE member Rebecca Barnes against Fannin County Schools and the State School Superintendent. Although Ms. Barnes worked as a classroom teacher for eighteen years, the school district claimed it “waived” her Fair Dismissal due process rights when the district converted to a charter school system. The district terminated Ms. Barnes without affording her due process notice and a hearing before the local board of education. You can read the complaint at https://gae.org/sites/gae/files/2023-07/barnes-codmplaint.pf.
With assistance from the NEA Office of General Counsel, we have succeeded at challenging Fannin County’s authority to “waive” vested tenure rights. The case is currently on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court after Fulton County Superior Court Judge Belinda Edwards ruled in GAE’s favor holding that retroactive elimination of tenure rights for educators whose rights had vested before the charter conversion violated the Georgia Constitution. Judge Edwards held that “There is no question that in 2015 [the school district] sought to waive the FDA rights of those who had earned them before its conversion into a charter school system…Consequently, [GAE] has shown that the waiver provision of the Charter Systems Act of 2007 has been applied retroactively.” Both the State of Georgia and Fannin County School District appealed the decision to the Georgia Supreme Court. A decision is expected in late 2023 or early 2024. You can read GAE’s appellate brief at https://gae.org/sites/gae/files/2023-07/barnes-supct-2023-brief.pdf.
GAE Challenges Divisive Concepts Law
GAE announces plans to file a federal lawsuit challenging House Bill 1084, Georgia’s classroom censorship law. Gov. Brian Kemp campaigned and delivered a promise to keep “woke politics” out of public schools by signing HB 1084, a/k/a the Protect Students First Act, the notoriously vague “divisive concepts” law, in Forsyth County, the notoriously racist “sundown town” past https://shorturl.at/huDMN.
The law prohibits teaching nine so-called “divisive concepts” involving perceived criticisms of the United States’ history with racism. Teachers, students, and advocates argue that the law censors Georgia educators and limits the ability of students to receive a complete and accurate education. You can read more about the law here https://online.flippingbook. com/view/453199931/.
“Efforts to expand our multicultural democracy through public education are being met with frantic efforts in Georgia to censor educators, ban books, and desperate measures to suppress teaching the truth about slavery and systemic racism,” said GAE General Counsel Mike McGonigle. “GAE is Georgia’s oldest professional educator organization. Its founders were formerly enslaved people who established the Georgia Teachers and Educators Association between 1876-1878. After Black Americans fought their way to liberation, they built schools and taught Black schoolchildren how to read and write, something they knew would expand their freedom. The ‘divisive concepts’ law attempts to erase this history and their voices.”
Non-Conforming Contract Offer Has Big Implications
The Georgia Court of Appeals agreed with GAE’s interpretation of statutory mandates that govern educator contracts. The ruling potentially upends decades of standard policy and practice regarding how school districts offer employment contracts to the state’s educators—John Tibbetts v. Worth County Schools, A22A1542 (March 14, 2023).
When Worth County Schools told GAE member John Tibbetts that he did not have a contract for the 2019-2020 school year, he called GAE legal services. We’re glad he did! GAE prevailed in this case, and the Court’s analysis of educator contracts will impact school districts’ business as usual when contracts are offered to educators. The Court dug deep into the nuts and bolts of the law governing educator contracts, with insightful analysis of how contracts are offered, what is offered, and when school districts offer employment for the next school year.
Specifically, the Court made several major findings:
1) The contract offer did not conform to the statutory mandates that (a) the contract “shall not contain blanks” and (b) it must state the “amount of compensation for the ensuing school year.” However, the contract as offered to Mr. Tibbetts contained a blank where the social security number was supposed to be. In addition, the “amount of compensation” referred to the current year’s salary schedule in contrast to the salary schedule for the “ensuing school year” as required by statute §20-2-211(b). Therefore, the Court found the offer was “non-conforming.” That is tantamount to declaring the offer null and void.
2) Because the contract offer was nonconforming (as if an offer was never made), the Court reasoned that the school district was then required, according to the statute, to provide Mr. Tibbetts with a written notice of non-renewal before the May 15 deadline which they had not done. Because the required notice of nonrenewal was not provided by May 15, the contract was automatically renewed by operation of law. §20-2-211(b).
The Court rejected the school district’s argument that because Mr. Tibbetts did not accept the offer within the time frame prescribed by the district, he did not have a contract for the next school year. To the contrary, due to the nonconforming offer of employment, the school district was required to provide Mr. Tibbetts a written notice of nonrenewal by May 15, which it failed to do. There are several important takeaways from the case. First, due to teacher shortages, school districts tender educator contracts earlier and earlier, seeking to lock in their personnel needs for the next school year. This makes things difficult for employees seeking career advancement opportunities.
There are better ways to address teacher shortages and retain your teachers, such as higher pay and abolishing harmful waivers. Second, contracts are offered (e.g., February) well before the local board of education has adopted next year’s salary schedule on a take-it or leave-it basis, no less. The Court’s decision places school districts in a difficult bind: how will an offer for next school year conform to the statute when the board has not voted to adopt next year’s salary schedule?
The case is under appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court, so stay tuned.
Judge Finds Charlton County School System Guilty Of Willful Contempt, Awards GAE Attorney Fees
The saga for racial reconciliation and justice continues in south Georgia. GAE member Dr. Sherilonda Green is an accomplished African American educator who has devoted her entire life and most of her professional career to Charlton County Schools. Yet, she has been subjected to racism and discrimination. Charlton County Schools has never had an African American female Principal or African American Superintendent in over 100 years of its existence. When she applied for the superintendent’s position and did not receive an interview, she knew something was wrong. Dr. Green contacted GAE legal services, and we’re glad she did! On February 1, 2021, GAE filed suit under the racial discrimination surrounding the hiring of the superintendent. When the district failed to comply and hid its long history of subjecting Black educators, like Dr. Green, to unlawful discrimination, GAE filed another action.
When asked during a court hearing if he thought the absence of a Black principal in 136 years was appropriate, the school board chairman replied, “I think it’s just the fact that that’s the way it is,” adding he wasn’t sure if it was appropriate or not. The chairman also didn’t think it was problematic that the district had not hired a Black principal in 136 years. If that’s the case, one might well ask, how did we get here?
Federal Court Sanctions School Board, Awards GAE a Whopping $25,137.25!
On November 16, 2022, Senior Federal District Court Judge Hugh Lawson ordered the Brooks County School District to pay $18,710.00 in attorney’s fees and $6,472.25 in costs associated with filing a motion for sanctions. Judge Lawson entered an Order finding that “Defense counsel has without question unreasonably complicated discovery in this case without justification. Although Plaintiff was able to cure some of the roadblocks created by Defense counsel, the additional time and energy spent filing and arguing this motion and the delay of litigation caused by Defense counsel.” In November 2020, GAE filed a lawsuit on behalf of GAE member Kristy Hilton alleging discrimination based on her pregnancy and her need for frequent medical leave.
During a routine deposition of the school system’s human resources director, Defense counsel directed his client not to answer questions relevant to the lawsuit and engaged in other conduct that cumulatively impeded the fair examination of the human resources director. The Court found that the
school board’s lawyer was intentionally obstreperous based on improper interjections and instructions to the witness, his failure to provide discoverable information, and his failure to adequately prepare the human resources director for her deposition. Members such as Ms. Hilton do not pay extra dues or out-of-pocket expenses. These are included as a
benefit of membership. The fees and costs awarded in this case are reimbursed to GAE and placed into the member defense fund to assist other members.
GAE Files Breach of Settlement Agreement Lawsuit
Before getting to the breach of settlement lawsuit, let’s review how we got to this point. Fifty-nine year-old Dr. Lana Foster grew up as a young black girl in a segregated school system in Echols County and would later serve over thirty-four years working as one of the sole Black educators within the system. Unfortunately, despite intervention by the
U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Civil Rights to compel desegregation and nondiscriminatory hiring practices by the Echols County School District, in 2018, Dr. Foster remained the only Black-certified teacher in the School District. She filed a complaint detailing historical and continuing racial discrimination that led to the nonrenewal of her contract, culminating when the school system filed a charge against her teaching certificate with the Professional Standards Commission. See Foster v. Echols County School District, et al., U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Civil Action No. 7:20-CV-00087.
That history included the time Dr. Foster’s husband ran for election to the Echols County Board of Education when she and her husband received a death threat with a makeshift grave built for them with a headstone stating: “Here lies the bodies of James and Lana Foster” topped with a watermelon and a black face. In November 2020, GAE and the EEOC settled Dr. Foster’s race discrimination lawsuit. A critical component of the settlement required Echols County Schools to implement a policy to address its racially discriminatory hiring practices by recruiting and hiring African American educators. However, Echols County Schools has yet to do anything to meet its legal obligations.
On December 8, 2022, GAE filed suit in the federal district court, Valdosta Division, alleging a breach of the settlement agreement. There are three Counts:
1. Beach of Settlement Agreement
2. Violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866
• All persons born in the United States were entitled to be citizens without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude.
• As citizens, they have the right to enforce contracts, sue and be sued, give evidence in court, and inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.
3. Breach of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
On December 22, 2022, GAE’s network attorney sent a formal request to the US Justice Department to intervene in the lawsuit to seek enforcement of the EEOC settlement agreement.
Non-Conforming Contract Offer Has Big Implications
The Georgia Court of Appeals agreed with GAE’s interpretation of statutory mandates that govern educator contracts.
The ruling potentially upends decades of standard policy and practice regarding how school districts offer employment contracts to the state’s educators—John Tibbetts v. Worth County Schools, A22A1542 (March 14, 2023). When Worth County Schools told GAE member John Tibbetts that he did not have a contract for the 2019-2020 school year, he called GAE legal services. We’re glad he did! GAE prevailed in this case, and the Court’s analysis of educator contracts will impact school districts’ business as usual when contracts are offered to educators. The Court dug deep into the nuts and bolts of the law governing educator contracts, with insightful analysis of how contracts are offered, what is offered, and when school districts offer employment for the next school year. Specifically, the Court made several major findings:
1) The contract offer did not conform to the statutory mandates that (a) the contract “shall not contain blanks” and (b) it must state the “amount of compensation for the ensuing school year.” However, the contract as offered to Mr. Tibbetts contained a blank where the social security number was supposed to be. In addition, the “amount of compensation” referred to the current year’s salary schedule in contrast to the salary schedule for the “ensuing school year” as required by statute §20-2-211(b). Therefore,the Court found the offer was “non-conforming.” That is tantamount to declaring the offer null and void.
2) Because the contract offer was nonconforming (as if an offer was never made), the Court reasoned that the school district was then required, according to the statute, to provide Mr. Tibbetts with a written notice of non-renewal before the May 15 deadline which
they had not done. Because the required notice of nonrenewal was not provided by May 15, the contract was automatically renewed by operation of law. §20-2-211(b).
The Court rejected the school district’s argument that because Mr. Tibbetts did not accept the offer within the time frame prescribed by the district, he did not have a contract for the next school year. To the contrary, due to the nonconforming offer of employment, the school district was required to provide Mr. Tibbetts a written notice of nonrenewal by May 15, which it failed to do. There are several important takeaways from the case.
First, due to teacher shortages, school districts tender educator contracts earlier and earlier, seeking to lock in their personnel needs for the next school year. This makes things difficult for employees seeking career advancement opportunities. There are better ways to address teacher shortages and retain your teachers, such as higher pay and abolishing harmful waivers. Second, contracts are offered (e.g., February) well before the local board of education has adopted next year’s salary schedule on a take-it or leave-it basis,
no less. The Court’s decision places school districts in a difficult bind: how will an offer for next school year conform to the statute when the board has not voted to adopt next year’s salary schedule.
The case is under appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court, so stay tuned.