Teacher paid to accept firing

[WorldWatcher]

Innocent until proven guilty

Yup. In a court of law.

When did that start applying to employment?

Just curious.

It's not necessarily an "innocent until proven guilty" thing it's a due process question.

I can't speak for California which the OP is about, but the Code of Virginia provides that teachers have a due process right to notification on the grounds of recommended termination (§ 22.1-307) and to appeal such termination (§ 63.2-1526).

The fact is that there are multiple types of employees, many refer to them as Contract or Classified employees and while both can appeal a dismissal, the process can be slightly different. In the case of Contract employees they are contracted to perform duties for the contract year for a set amount of money. If they terminate employment for a reason not permitted under the law, there are repercussions that can be taken. For example the individual could be sued and required to pay replacement costs. In Virginia, the local School Board can notify the State Department of Education and request that the individuals teacher license be revoked which would effectively bar them from working in the field in the future. On the other side of the coin if the government entity terminates the employee and cannot prove cause, which would require an investigation, statements, witnesses, etc. - then the government entity could be liable for lost wages and attorneys fees for violating the contract.

So ya, at least in Virginia - the Code of Virginia provides for due process when it comes to terminating contract employees.




LIS > Code of Virginia


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

From your link.

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.

In other words, the mere existence of a written or implied contract is not enough to trigger due process, the contract must also guaranteeing a property interest in a job. That is why school districts send out pink slips every year to teachers, because doing so negates any property interest they might develop through an implied contract. If it did not work that way teachers could never be fired, even if the school district cannot afford them. I am pretty sure even you are not going to try to argue that position.

Do you still insist you are right even though your link proves you are not?