Students Expulsion for misconduct
Students Expulsion for misconduct
Citation: Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education
Topic: Students Expulsion for misconduct
Relief Sought: Students sought to find out if due process required an opportunity for hearing and determination before expelling students at a tax supported college for misconduct.
Issues: (1) Did the expulsion letters contain the specific reason for their expulsion? (2). were the students taken through due process before expulsion? (3) Did the students receive any formal charges before their expulsion? (4) Was any of the students granted a hearing prior to their expulsion?
Facts: Six negroes formerly students at Alabama State College brought the case where they sought permanent and preliminary injunction restraining the Alabama State Board of Education and its individual members, who included the governor from interfering, obstructing, or preventing their right to attend the Alabama State College. The question presented in their evidence and pleadings was whether there was a need for due process and an opportunity to be heard before they were expelled (Kern and David, 2011).
Findings of the Trial Court: The court dismissed their application asserting that the courts have always upheld the legality of regulations. This means that the regulations give colleges the right to expel students without notice and without revealing the reasons for their expulsion if this is meant to generally benefit the institution (Kern and David, 2011).
Reasoning: The right to attend a public college is not enshrined in the constitution. The state board on education that is the governing board in this case has the mandate to establish rules and regulations that govern any institution under its care (Kern and David, 2011).
Citation: Griggs v. Duke Power
Topic: Conditions of employment
Relief sought: Employees brought action to challenge their company’s requirement that they must possess a high school diploma or must pass intelligence tests in order to be employed or get job transfers in the company.
Issues: (1) Were these new requirements directed at or intended to assess the capacity to learn to do specific jobs? (2) Is it lawful for employers to segregate their employees on account of their race? (3) Are employers permeated in law to use any professionally developed ability to evaluate their employees?
Facts: The Company’s former racial discrimination policy had ended. The Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was only prospective it thus did not get to the previous discrimination (Kern and David, 2011).
Findings of the Trial: The Appeals Court in part reversed the decision by the trial court thereby rejecting the fact that discrimination stemmed from the company’s past practices. However, it agreed with the appellate judges that the adoption of test and diploma requirements was not discriminatory in nature.
Reasoning: The use of test and diploma requirements was lawful in nature and just because a handful of Negros was found not capable, it did not mean that it was discriminatory in nature. The Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act necessitates the elimination of unnecessary, artificial, and arbitrary barriers to employment that resentfully operate to segregate based on race. If an employment practice that excludes negroes cannot be found to be related to job performance, it is forbidden in spite of any lack of discriminatory intentions. The act does exclude the use of measuring or assessment procedures, but it proscribes the provision of a controlling force except if they are found to be related to employees’ job performance (Kern and David, 2011).
Citation: Kenai Peninsula SD v. Kenai Peninsula Education Association
Topic: Labor Law
Issues: (1) Were the teachers relieved from their non-professional jobs? Did the teachers have elementary planning time? (3) W were the class sizes?
Facts: The teachers associations sued their school districts to oblige them to enter a collective bargaining that was to be in good faith. Amongst other things, the teachers requested for a 45 minutes allocation to their planning period. This was to be used during a day’s academic portion. However, this presented an extra complication. It was to be decided whether, as an issue of educational policy, elementary school children should be taught by one teacher the entire day or they were old enough to be taught by different teachers.
Findings of the trial Court: Number of hours worked, salaries, leave time, and fringe benefits are negotiable. The legislature did not intend to let these items undergo bargaining. Therefore, the legislature should consider to provide in the future more specific guidance on several issues that the union sought to negotiate through enactments.
Reasoning: Section14 Chapter 20/.610 does not provide any power to the school boards to make final decisions on policies. On the other hand, if teachers unions are allowed to bargain on issues to do with educational policy, it is believed that the school boards autonomy would be seriously eroded. This will ultimately be a threat and lead the appointed officers and elected government officials to subject themselves to their authority. This means that school administrators and boards would not be able to perform their duties effectively and in line with public interest (Kern and David, 2011).
References
Kern Alexander and David Alexander M. (2011). American Public School Law, Cenagage Learning: London.
