The Case Of Ferris Vs. Special School Dist

Gurpreet Singh
Dec 15, 2014
Prof. - Aziz
Ferris v. Special School Dist. No. 1

In the case of Ferris v. Special School Dist. No. 1 (1973), the plaintiff, Barbara Ferris, a probationary teacher, brought action against Special School Dist. No. 1. Allegedly, the district denied Ferris due process regarding the termination of her employment. Barbara Ferris was not tenured; therefore, she was not guaranteed a renewal of her annual contract. The school may or may not renew the annual contract of a teacher at the board’s discretion, something the probationary teacher is aware of before accepting employment. In the case, it was stated any probationary school teacher will be reemployed for the next school year unless the school has provided the teacher

Special School Dist. No. 1 (1973) case, the case of Brouillette v. Board of Directors of Merged Area IX, Alias Eastern Iowa Community College (1975) addresses an untenured teacher who claimed a denial of due process in response to a terminated contract. Theodore R. Brouillete, an untenured community college teacher whose employment was discontinued, complained of a denial of constitutional rights to due process and an inadequate public hearing. Due to inefficiencies in his teaching, Brouillette was appropriately notified of the discontinuation of his annual contract, identical to Barbara Ferris. Brouillette’s inadequacies were minor and not of the kind that would hinder his ability to acquire future employment. In a similar fashion, the comments made by the principal of the board in the Ferris v. Special School District No. 1 (1973) were also found by the court to be insufficient enough to affect Ferris’ future employment opportunities. The court decided that since Brouillete was nontenured, he was not entitled to protection of procedural due process guaranteed by the Constitution. The board in this case, as well as the district in Ferris’ case, were not at fault and did not infringe upon the rights of the

The plaintiff should be able to defend themselves if these hearings are provided. The cases mentioned relate to one another in that all of the plaintiffs were found to be untenured, with the exception of Preston Barbee in the case of Barbee v. Union City of Bd. of Ed. (2014). Also with the exception of Barbee, the decisions made by the court were justified in that none of the plaintiff’s rights were breached in any way. The employers of these plaintiffs were not subject to rehire them for the following school year. Most of these cases relate to the case of Ferris v. Special School District No. 1. (1973) due to the belief of entitlement to due process most of the plaintiffs share. The characters of the plaintiffs were not marred in such a way that they would not be able to gain employment in the future. Ferris’ case ruling was justified in that she was not entitled to due process and in relation to the outcomes of other related cases, her rights were not violated. The defendants were not at fault for terminating Ferris as demonstrated by the aforementioned cases where no rights were proved to be in violation, with the exception of Roberts v. Lake Central School Corp.