Jeffers also testified that it is her opinion that the plaintiff is not a competent teacher to plan work and evaluate student activities jointly as a team member, nor is she competent in individualizing instruction in small groups. During the spring semester of , Mr. Knott, Principal, had several occasions to meet and discuss with plaintiff her teaching methods and her dwindling prospects for re-employment the following year.
Roxboro city council
Knott met with the entire team to discuss plaintiff's failure to abide by the rules and regulations agreed upon by the team. Plaintiff stated that she did not recall any rules being made, but if there had been any, she did not understand them. Knott met again with plaintiff's team to discuss plaintiff's failure to enforce disciplinary rules.
Knott called plaintiff into his office and discussed her problems regarding planning and cooperating with the other teachers, and her failure to implement individualized instruction. At this meeting she was also warned that if her teaching methods did not improve, her evaluation would be very low and that she could possibly be replaced. Knott again called in plaintiff to discuss her lack of progress in the areas previously mentioned. Knott again explained to her that he would have to give her a poor evaluation, and that this would mean that he would recommend that she not be rehired unless great improvement was made.
Knott again met with plaintiff and at this time showed her his written evaluation of her and advised her that it would be his recommendation that she not be rehired. Knott's evaluation and asked to talk with Superintendent Rogers. Knott immediately arranged a meeting with Mr.
Rogers for plaintiff that same day, and gave her a copy of his evaluation to take with her. Rogers called in both Dr.
Rogers and Mr. Knott to discuss the evaluation with the plaintiff at that time. Rogers informed plaintiff that he agreed with Mr. Knott's evaluation and recommendation that her contract not be renewed. Rogers agreed to reconsider his decision, and it was decided that they should all meet again in a week. Knott and Superintendent Rogers met in Mr. Knott's office, at which time Mr.
Rogers advised plaintiff that he still agreed with Mr. Knott's evaluation and that he would recommend to the Person County Board of Education that her teaching contract be terminated after the school year. Rogers also informed the plaintiff that she had a right to a hearing before the Board of Education, and the right to be represented by counsel at such hearing. The plaintiff did not request to be heard by the Board of Education, and on June 7, , at its next regularly scheduled monthly meeting, the Board concurred in Mr.
- Person county school supply list.
- death records in dayton ohio.
- filing for dissolution of marriage in ohio.
- florida birth certificate request form.
- Navigation menu.
- divorce form free state washington?
- orange county florida court records request.
Roger's non-renewal decision. On June 8, , Mr. Rogers notified the plaintiff by registered mail that her contract would not be renewed. On July 29, , the plaintiff contacted Mr. Rogers by telephone and requested a hearing before the Person County Board of Education. Rogers scheduled a hearing to be held on August 2, Later that same day, July 29, plaintiff again telephoned Mr. Rogers to inform him that her counsel could not make the August 2 date, and to request that the hearing be continued.
No specific future date for a hearing was set at that time. On August 9, , Mr. Richard G. Long, Attorney at Law, who is now deceased, informing Mr. Long, as attorney for the Person County Board of Education, that he represented the plaintiff. Chambers also requested the reasons for plaintiff's termination and for the new date of the Board hearing.
Rogers was notified by telephone by Mr. Long of this letter from Mr. On August 30, , Mr.
Chambers, having received no reply to his first letter, again wrote Mr. Long requesting a date for a Board hearing. On August 31, , Mr. Long, in response to Mr. Chambers second letter, wrote Mr. Chambers informing him that he, Long, felt that no useful purpose could be served by scheduling a new hearing. A copy of Mr. Long's letter to Mr.
Chambers was sent to Mr. Sometime in late August or early September, , the exact date being unknown, plaintiff contacted Mr.
North Syracuse Central School District - Wikipedia
Rogers and requested a hearing before the Person County Board of Education. The exact conversation between Mr. Rogers and the plaintiff is in dispute. The plaintiff contends that Mr. Rogers conditioned granting of a hearing upon her assurance that she would not be represented by counsel.
It is concluded that no such condition was expressly or implicitly made a prerequisite for obtaining the hearing.
- Person county nc schools.
- Join the St. Margaret's Family!.
- PTSO and PTA Officer Appreciation Party - Palace Pointe;
- Roxboro Community School.
- North End Elementary School / Homepage.
The plaintiff had no reason whatsoever to believe that she could not be represented by counsel. Indeed, the facts as set out in Finding Nos. It is not disputed that in the course of this conversation between plaintiff and Mr. Rogers, plaintiff agreed to a hearing on September 7, , and informed Mr. Rogers that she would not be represented by counsel. At the outset of the hearing Mr.
- Roxboro city council?
- tracking gps for people in europe!
- find marriage license records saint louis county missouri?
- registered sex offenders in tulsa ok.
Long, Attorney for the Board, each told plaintiff that she was entitled to be represented by an attorney. The plaintiff replied that she would plead the case on her own. Rogers, Dr. David Rogers and Mr. The plaintiff stated her grievances to the Board and the reasons why, in her opinion, her contract should not have been terminated. She further submitted for review to the Board certain work and materials some of which she had prepared and some that had been prepared by students under her supervision. The Chairman of the Board of Education, Mr.
Bradsher Gentry, called upon Superintendent Walter S. Rogers to review and explain the reasons for his decision not to renew the plaintiff's contract. In addition, Dr. Rogers was also called upon, and he stated his observations and the reasons why he recommended that the plaintiff's contract be terminated. The Board, after hearing everything the plaintiff wanted to say, decided to sustain its earlier decision to terminate the plaintiff.
Bradsher Gentry, Chairman, Mrs. Emma N. Noell, Mr. Carl W. Forsyth, Mrs. Vera C. Dawes, and Mr. James E. They are all white.
Illinois Republican Joins Push for Nonpartisan Redistricting
No black has ever served on the Person County Board of Education. Prior to the school year , there were no complaints about the plaintiff to Superintendent Rogers. There was no tenure available to public school teachers during the years of plaintiff's employment with defendant. The employment practices of the Person County Board of Education evidence no patterns or indications of racial discrimination.
In the school year forty-one teachers left the employ of the Person County School System. Of this number, four teachers were asked to resign and one, plaintiff, did not have her contract renewed. There was some testimony by Superintendent Rogers that plaintiff was informed that she would be asked to resign, but that point was not clarified. Therefore, no finding as to whether or not plaintiff was first asked to resign or given the opportunity to do so before she was terminated is made. Of the four teachers asked to resign, three were white, and no information as to the fourth was furnished.
It is concluded that racial discrimination played no part in the decision to terminate plaintiff's contract with defendant. This action is brought pursuant to Title 28 U. All parties are properly before the Court and the Court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. Plaintiff's first contention is that her race was a factor in the decision not to renew her teaching contract after the school year.
Unquestionably, such an allegation, if true, would render void any action depriving her of employment with the Person County School System.
However, the issue of racial motivation is a question of fact, and it has previously been found that plaintiff's race had absolutely no bearing upon her termination.