Teacher paid to accept firing

Remember that teacher who tied up the kids and did other things I, personally, do not want to talk about? It seems that the school district could not defend firing him because any investigation they conducted might have actually interfered with the criminal investigation that LAPD was conducting. That, for the more ignorant posters here, is a proper application of due process to this situation. Due process does not apply to employment contracts, it applies to criminal law.

Not defending the scumbag in the article, but a technical correction...

Actually, Due Process can apply to employment contracts, especially when that process is defined under the laws of the State. For example, in Virginia the Code of Virginia (Title 22.1 Education) provides for specific grievance procedures for those under education contracts, investigatory requirements, legal counsel representation, and appeal. Failure by a school system to follow the Due Process outlined in the State code means that the School Division could be responsible for lost salary for non-compliance.

Depends on the grievance procedures written into State code as to what the Due Process procedures are.


LIS > Code of Virginia


>>>>

That is not due process, it is a requirement that the government follows a procedure before it fires an employee. Like I said in the other thread, if the said teacher does something egregious the school district should be able to fire them. There is actually a narrow exception where due process applies to employment laws, but that only occurs when the employee is being fired for exercising his rights. Unless you want to argue that the teacher has a free expression right to abuse children due process does not apply to this case. It wouldn't apply in Virginia either.
 
They can be fired whenever the district wants to fire them.

The teachers can also file suit for wrongful termination like any human being in the US.

The schools are jsut being smart and trying to save money for the schools by doing it the least costful way.


That was funny.

The least costly way would have been to fire him the first time he got in trouble. The least costly way now is to simply fire him and file a simple motion to dismiss the case if he actually was stupid enough to bring it to court because there is not a court on the planet that would side with this guy. Instead, they chose to give away taxpayer money, not their own, and settle.
 
Due process does not apply to employment contracts, it applies to criminal law.

So, instead of owning up to being wrong in the other thread, you make a new thread and take a bunch of passive aggressive swipes?

No matter, you are still wrong.

How does due process protect a public employee?- ABA Family Legal Guide

The courts have held that an employee has a property interest in a job if there is a written or implied contract granting the employee a property interest in the job; if past practice of the employer shows that the employee has a property interest in the job; or if a statute gives the employee a property interest in the job. For example, a teacher with tenure is considered to have a property interest in his or her job, because there is the express or implied understanding that a teacher cannot lose that job without just cause.

If a public employee has a property interest in a job, he or she cannot be discharged without due process. Due process requires that the employee be given notice of the reason for being discharged and a fair hearing at which to contest the decision.
 
Due process does not apply to employment contracts, it applies to criminal law.

So, instead of owning up to being wrong in the other thread, you make a new thread and take a bunch of passive aggressive swipes?

No matter, you are still wrong.

How does due process protect a public employee?- ABA Family Legal Guide

The courts have held that an employee has a property interest in a job if there is a written or implied contract granting the employee a property interest in the job; if past practice of the employer shows that the employee has a property interest in the job; or if a statute gives the employee a property interest in the job. For example, a teacher with tenure is considered to have a property interest in his or her job, because there is the express or implied understanding that a teacher cannot lose that job without just cause.

If a public employee has a property interest in a job, he or she cannot be discharged without due process. Due process requires that the employee be given notice of the reason for being discharged and a fair hearing at which to contest the decision.

I did not admit to being wrong in the other thread because I wasn't wrong, you just focused on the fact that the district was going through a process before they fired the teacher to argue that they were required to do so before they fired her. Can you provide a single reason why they cannot fire her and document it afterwards? Does your attempt to to claim the school district cannot fire a teacher just because they want to in any way applies to a situation where the teacher sexually abused the students in the classroom, or did the words just cause in the paragraph you quoted above escape your notice?

Since I am wrong here you should be able to tell me why just firing this teacher actually violated his due process rights. It would probably help if you did not use a site that is actually geared toward getting people to sue employers and make money for the people that are running the site.

Due process is not a valid claim here, and does not apply to employment law except in very narrow circumstances. Those circumstances actually place the burden on the employee to prove his rights were violated, not the other way around. On the other hand, if the government violates your due process rights in a criminal case they are required to prove that they did not actually negatively impact your rights.
 
That is not due process, it is a requirement that the government follows a procedure before it fires an employee.

In other words..........

Due process.

Nope. Due process means the state cannot violate your rights as an individual. Imposing additional constraints on the government by requiring them to follow a prescribed procedure is above and beyond the requirements imposed by due process. If it wasn't there would be no need to actually write it into the legal code of that state.
 
Due process does not apply to employment contracts, it applies to criminal law.

So, instead of owning up to being wrong in the other thread, you make a new thread and take a bunch of passive aggressive swipes?

No matter, you are still wrong.

How does due process protect a public employee?- ABA Family Legal Guide

The courts have held that an employee has a property interest in a job if there is a written or implied contract granting the employee a property interest in the job; if past practice of the employer shows that the employee has a property interest in the job; or if a statute gives the employee a property interest in the job. For example, a teacher with tenure is considered to have a property interest in his or her job, because there is the express or implied understanding that a teacher cannot lose that job without just cause.

If a public employee has a property interest in a job, he or she cannot be discharged without due process. Due process requires that the employee be given notice of the reason for being discharged and a fair hearing at which to contest the decision.

I did not admit to being wrong in the other thread because I wasn't wrong, you just focused on the fact that the district was going through a process before they fired the teacher to argue that they were required to do so before they fired her. Can you provide a single reason why they cannot fire her and document it afterwards? Does your attempt to to claim the school district cannot fire a teacher just because they want to in any way applies to a situation where the teacher sexually abused the students in the classroom, or did the words just cause in the paragraph you quoted above escape your notice?

Since I am wrong here you should be able to tell me why just firing this teacher actually violated his due process rights. It would probably help if you did not use a site that is actually geared toward getting people to sue employers and make money for the people that are running the site.

Due process is not a valid claim here, and does not apply to employment law except in very narrow circumstances. Those circumstances actually place the burden on the employee to prove his rights were violated, not the other way around. On the other hand, if the government violates your due process rights in a criminal case they are required to prove that they did not actually negatively impact your rights.

I haven't even paid attention to the details and I am not interested about speculating on it.

I am only interested in pointing out that you are incorrect when you claim that due process is reserved for criminal matters. That is incorrect. It is also incorrect to claim that it doesn't apply to contracts. It specifically applies to contracts for public employees and it is not just in "narrow cases". I don't know where you are deriving your opinion from, but it isn't correct.

So, you are in fact, wrong. It's not even a matter of opinion or debate.

Don't take my word for it. Go and see what the American Bar Association said about it.
 
So, instead of owning up to being wrong in the other thread, you make a new thread and take a bunch of passive aggressive swipes?

No matter, you are still wrong.

How does due process protect a public employee?- ABA Family Legal Guide

I did not admit to being wrong in the other thread because I wasn't wrong, you just focused on the fact that the district was going through a process before they fired the teacher to argue that they were required to do so before they fired her. Can you provide a single reason why they cannot fire her and document it afterwards? Does your attempt to to claim the school district cannot fire a teacher just because they want to in any way applies to a situation where the teacher sexually abused the students in the classroom, or did the words just cause in the paragraph you quoted above escape your notice?

Since I am wrong here you should be able to tell me why just firing this teacher actually violated his due process rights. It would probably help if you did not use a site that is actually geared toward getting people to sue employers and make money for the people that are running the site.

Due process is not a valid claim here, and does not apply to employment law except in very narrow circumstances. Those circumstances actually place the burden on the employee to prove his rights were violated, not the other way around. On the other hand, if the government violates your due process rights in a criminal case they are required to prove that they did not actually negatively impact your rights.

I haven't even paid attention to the details and I am not interested about speculating on it.

I am only interested in pointing out that you are incorrect when you claim that due process is reserved for criminal matters. That is incorrect. It is also incorrect to claim that it doesn't apply to contracts. It specifically applies to contracts for public employees and it is not just in "narrow cases". I don't know where you are deriving your opinion from, but it isn't correct.

So, you are in fact, wrong. It's not even a matter of opinion or debate.

Don't take my word for it. Go and see what the American Bar Association said about it.

Did you miss the part where I said due process has a very limited application in employment law that results when the employer actually violates the employee's rights? Do I have to explain everything to you multiple times?
 
I did not admit to being wrong in the other thread because I wasn't wrong, you just focused on the fact that the district was going through a process before they fired the teacher to argue that they were required to do so before they fired her. Can you provide a single reason why they cannot fire her and document it afterwards? Does your attempt to to claim the school district cannot fire a teacher just because they want to in any way applies to a situation where the teacher sexually abused the students in the classroom, or did the words just cause in the paragraph you quoted above escape your notice?

Since I am wrong here you should be able to tell me why just firing this teacher actually violated his due process rights. It would probably help if you did not use a site that is actually geared toward getting people to sue employers and make money for the people that are running the site.

Due process is not a valid claim here, and does not apply to employment law except in very narrow circumstances. Those circumstances actually place the burden on the employee to prove his rights were violated, not the other way around. On the other hand, if the government violates your due process rights in a criminal case they are required to prove that they did not actually negatively impact your rights.

I haven't even paid attention to the details and I am not interested about speculating on it.

I am only interested in pointing out that you are incorrect when you claim that due process is reserved for criminal matters. That is incorrect. It is also incorrect to claim that it doesn't apply to contracts. It specifically applies to contracts for public employees and it is not just in "narrow cases". I don't know where you are deriving your opinion from, but it isn't correct.

So, you are in fact, wrong. It's not even a matter of opinion or debate.

Don't take my word for it. Go and see what the American Bar Association said about it.

Did you miss the part where I said due process has a very limited application in employment law that results when the employer actually violates the employee's rights? Do I have to explain everything to you multiple times?

No. You just aren't correct. Due process isn't limited if you are talking about public employees.

Again, read the ABA link for your own edification.
 
I haven't even paid attention to the details and I am not interested about speculating on it.

I am only interested in pointing out that you are incorrect when you claim that due process is reserved for criminal matters. That is incorrect. It is also incorrect to claim that it doesn't apply to contracts. It specifically applies to contracts for public employees and it is not just in "narrow cases". I don't know where you are deriving your opinion from, but it isn't correct.

So, you are in fact, wrong. It's not even a matter of opinion or debate.

Don't take my word for it. Go and see what the American Bar Association said about it.

Did you miss the part where I said due process has a very limited application in employment law that results when the employer actually violates the employee's rights? Do I have to explain everything to you multiple times?

No. You just aren't correct. Due process isn't limited if you are talking about public employees.

Again, read the ABA link for your own edification.

You are entirely correct, due process is not limited. Its application, however, is, just like your link pointed out. I already pointed out where it was talking about just cause and a limited property interest in a job if, repeat if, it is created by statue or the past practice of the employer creates such an instance. Seriously, do you even read your own posts?
 
I haven't even paid attention to the details and I am not interested about speculating on it.

I am only interested in pointing out that you are incorrect when you claim that due process is reserved for criminal matters. That is incorrect. It is also incorrect to claim that it doesn't apply to contracts. It specifically applies to contracts for public employees and it is not just in "narrow cases". I don't know where you are deriving your opinion from, but it isn't correct.

So, you are in fact, wrong. It's not even a matter of opinion or debate.

Don't take my word for it. Go and see what the American Bar Association said about it.

Did you miss the part where I said due process has a very limited application in employment law that results when the employer actually violates the employee's rights? Do I have to explain everything to you multiple times?

No. You just aren't correct. Due process isn't limited if you are talking about public employees.

Again, read the ABA link for your own edification.

Actually, it is, as your own link explained. But I do thank you for repeatedly posting the same thing again and again, it is amusing to see you so desperate to be right even after you posted proof that you are wrong.
 
Did you miss the part where I said due process has a very limited application in employment law that results when the employer actually violates the employee's rights? Do I have to explain everything to you multiple times?

No. You just aren't correct. Due process isn't limited if you are talking about public employees.

Again, read the ABA link for your own edification.

Actually, it is, as your own link explained. But I do thank you for repeatedly posting the same thing again and again, it is amusing to see you so desperate to be right even after you posted proof that you are wrong.

I have no idea what link you are reading, but the link I provided states due process is afforded to public employees and it is not limited to special caveats. It governs the whole termination process insomuch that you can't simply "fire" a federal employee. You have to adhere to the tenets of due process.

If a public employee has a property interest in a job, he or she cannot be discharged without due process. Due process requires that the employee be given notice of the reason for being discharged and a fair hearing at which to contest the decision.

If you have a different source that supports your contention, then feel free to post it.
 
No. You just aren't correct. Due process isn't limited if you are talking about public employees.

Again, read the ABA link for your own edification.

Actually, it is, as your own link explained. But I do thank you for repeatedly posting the same thing again and again, it is amusing to see you so desperate to be right even after you posted proof that you are wrong.

I have no idea what link you are reading, but the link I provided states due process is afforded to public employees and it is not limited to special caveats. It governs the whole termination process insomuch that you can't simply "fire" a federal employee. You have to adhere to the tenets of due process.

If a public employee has a property interest in a job, he or she cannot be discharged without due process. Due process requires that the employee be given notice of the reason for being discharged and a fair hearing at which to contest the decision.
If you have a different source that supports your contention, then feel free to post it.

Do you know what if means?

conjunction 1. in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that: Sing if you want to. Stay indoors if it rains. I'll go if you do.
2. even though: an enthusiastic if small audience.
3. whether: He asked if I knew Spanish.
4. (used to introduce an exclamatory phrase): If only Dad could see me now!
5. when or whenever: If it was raining, we had to play inside.

noun 6. a supposition; uncertain possibility: The future is full of ifs.
7. a condition, requirement, or stipulation: There are too many ifs in his agreement.

If due process for public employees were actually unlimited they would not say that public employees cannot be fired without due process if they have a property interest in their jobs.
 
Actually, it is, as your own link explained. But I do thank you for repeatedly posting the same thing again and again, it is amusing to see you so desperate to be right even after you posted proof that you are wrong.

I have no idea what link you are reading, but the link I provided states due process is afforded to public employees and it is not limited to special caveats. It governs the whole termination process insomuch that you can't simply "fire" a federal employee. You have to adhere to the tenets of due process.

If you have a different source that supports your contention, then feel free to post it.

Do you know what if means?

conjunction 1. in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that: Sing if you want to. Stay indoors if it rains. I'll go if you do.
2. even though: an enthusiastic if small audience.
3. whether: He asked if I knew Spanish.
4. (used to introduce an exclamatory phrase): If only Dad could see me now!
5. when or whenever: If it was raining, we had to play inside.

noun 6. a supposition; uncertain possibility: The future is full of ifs.
7. a condition, requirement, or stipulation: There are too many ifs in his agreement.

If due process for public employees were actually unlimited they would not say that public employees cannot be fired without due process if they have a property interest in their jobs.

In other words, you have your opinion. An opinion which is wrong.
 
I have no idea what link you are reading, but the link I provided states due process is afforded to public employees and it is not limited to special caveats. It governs the whole termination process insomuch that you can't simply "fire" a federal employee. You have to adhere to the tenets of due process.

If you have a different source that supports your contention, then feel free to post it.

Do you know what if means?

conjunction 1. in case that; granting or supposing that; on condition that: Sing if you want to. Stay indoors if it rains. I'll go if you do.
2. even though: an enthusiastic if small audience.
3. whether: He asked if I knew Spanish.
4. (used to introduce an exclamatory phrase): If only Dad could see me now!
5. when or whenever: If it was raining, we had to play inside.

noun 6. a supposition; uncertain possibility: The future is full of ifs.
7. a condition, requirement, or stipulation: There are too many ifs in his agreement.
If due process for public employees were actually unlimited they would not say that public employees cannot be fired without due process if they have a property interest in their jobs.

In other words, you have your opinion. An opinion which is wrong.

Let me see if I understand your position, because I am using your source to prove you wrong instead of finding a different source I am wrong, does that sum it up?
 
Do you know what if means?

If due process for public employees were actually unlimited they would not say that public employees cannot be fired without due process if they have a property interest in their jobs.

In other words, you have your opinion. An opinion which is wrong.

Let me see if I understand your position, because I am using your source to prove you wrong instead of finding a different source I am wrong, does that sum it up?

Then you haven't adequately stated how my source coeeoborates your opinion.

By my reading, allublic workers are entitled to due process. If you read something differently, then you are going to have to enlighten me.
 
In other words, you have your opinion. An opinion which is wrong.

Let me see if I understand your position, because I am using your source to prove you wrong instead of finding a different source I am wrong, does that sum it up?

Then you haven't adequately stated how my source coeeoborates your opinion.

By my reading, allublic workers are entitled to due process. If you read something differently, then you are going to have to enlighten me.

Let me try one last time.

Your position is that public employees always have due process rights. The ABA link you provided says public employees have due process rights if certain conditions are met. That makes you wrong and negates my need to explain anything.
 
Let me see if I understand your position, because I am using your source to prove you wrong instead of finding a different source I am wrong, does that sum it up?

Then you haven't adequately stated how my source coeeoborates your opinion.

By my reading, allublic workers are entitled to due process. If you read something differently, then you are going to have to enlighten me.

Let me try one last time.

Your position is that public employees always have due process rights. The ABA link you provided says public employees have due process rights if certain conditions are met. That makes you wrong and negates my need to explain anything.

Yes, such stringent conditions as an actual or implied contract.

The courts have held that an employee has a property interest in a job if there is a written or implied contract granting the employee a property interest in the job; if past practice of the employer shows that the employee has a property interest in the job; or if a statute gives the employee a property interest in the job. For example, a teacher with tenure is considered to have a property interest in his or her job, because there is the express or implied understanding that a teacher cannot lose that job without just cause.

Once again, public opinions have due process. It is not, as you contended, reserved for court room proceedings.
 

Forum List

Back
Top