Tweet

() Comments

Report

We are going to disagree on the legalities of suing a teacher.
In regards to discharge, districts dont state in any way shape
or form that they are discharging a teacher as retaliation. That
just doesnt happen.

On 3/30/15, EasTexSteve wrote:
> On 3/23/15, PsyGuy wrote:
>> Suing a teacher successfully is the exception not the rule,
and
>> you have to have a home to have home owners insurance. I rent
my
>> apartment and lease my car.
>
> You think that will keep you from being sued? Think again.
Even
> if you don't currently have two pennies to rub together, you
will
> never again have credit, and never be able to own anything
with
> your name on it.
>
>
>> Districts will defend a teacher if the alternative is the
>> teacher testifying against the school. Happens all the time.
>
> What "happens all the time" is the district throws the teacher
> under the bus in order to place all blame on the teacher and
try
> to protect the district from the lawsuit.
>
>
>> I read mine very carefully the whole point of having
liability
>> insurance is to pay damages when the teacher has liability.
If
>> there is no liability than there is no reason to pay.
>
> The teacher union or organization is going to look at one
thing:
> how much is it going to cost to defend this teacher, and what
are
> the chances of recovering any costs. That's the bottom line.
> And, if it's obvious the teacher was as fault, they won't
touch
> the case with a stick.
>
>
>> It is the exact opposite of easier to go after a district for
a
>> wrongful termination action. 1) How do you pursue a wrongful
>> termination suite without income and resources to hire an
>> attorney for the 2-5 years the case will take?
>
> That's why I tell everyone, and I've also said it here: you
need
> to keep 5k to 10k in your war chest for starting a legal
action.
> It's your job you are talking about here. Consider it
insurance.
>
>
> 2) Districts dont
>> need cause to terminate anyone everyone now is on a
probationary
>> contract or a 1 year term contract. I dont know anyone who
has
>> been offered a continuing contract in this millennium. The
>> standard for non-renewal of a term contract Is "cause" it
doent
>> have to be "good cause".
>
> There are still standards of behavior when it comes to dealing
> with employees. Terminating an employee as an act of
retaliation
> against them is a big no-no, even if they were only an at-will
> employee. A smart lawyer will go after the district on
wrongful
> termination first. You can carry on a much broader fishing
> expedition in state court to gather evidence than you can in
> federal court. Then, take the evidence gathered in state court
> and go after them in fed court on a civil rights violation.
>
>
>> Your not going to lose, someone going to settle, assuming it
>> gets that far. There is on average one suit a year that makes
it
>> to a setting on a docket. Those odds are FAR, FAR better than
>> being non-renewed.
>
> They usually do settle. And, the fact that they do settle is a
> big indicator that the district had some liability exposure.
> Believe me, if the district thought they had a snowball's
chance
> in hell of beating the lawsuit, they would fight it until the
end
> because it's not their own money they are spending, it's YOURS
> (the taxpayers.) That's why such suits end up in fed court on
a
> violation of civil rights. On a civil rights violation, you
can
> not only sue the entity, you can sue the individuals. And, for
> triple damages. It never fails that the quickest way to a
> districts' ear is through their individual back pockets.

Posts on this thread, including this one