Gouge v. Joint School District No. 1
Decision Date | 16 March 1970 |
Docket Number | 165.,No. 69-C-166,69-C-166 |
Citation | 310 F. Supp. 984 |
Parties | Mrs. Saxon GOUGE, Plaintiff, v. JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Towns of Winter, Draper, Ojibwa, Meadowbrook, Radisson, Couderay, Villages of Radisson & Couderay, Sawyer County, Town of Hubbard, Rusk County, the Board of Education of Joint School District No. 1, et al., and Stanley Gutowski, Chester A. Boncler, Aubrey Magnuson, Edward Anderson, William Boecker, Jr., Roy Swedberg, Mrs. Lorraine Shydlowski, Mrs. Dorothy Pasanen and Mrs. Hazel Arntz, individually and as members of said Board of Education; and Fred E. Johnson, individually and as Administrator of Joint School District No. 1, Defendants. Mrs. Viola G. KLEIN, Plaintiff, v. JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Towns of Winter, Draper, Ojibwa, Meadowbrook, Radisson, Couderay, Villages of Radisson & Couderay, Sawyer County, Town of Hubbard, Rusk County, the Board of Education of Joint School District No. 1, et al., and Stanley Gutowski, Chester A. Boncler, Aubrey Magnuson, Edward Anderson, William Boecker, Jr., Roy Swedberg, Mrs. Lorraine Shydlowski, Mrs. Dorothy Pasanen and Mrs. Hazel Arntz, individually and as members of said Board of Education; and Fred E. Johnson, individually and as Administrator of Joint School District No. 1, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
Richard L. Cates, Robert C. Kelly, Bruce F. Ehlke, John H. Bowers, Madison, Wis., for plaintiffs.
James F. Clark, Ronald J. Kotnik, Madison, Wis., for defendants.
These are civil actions brought to challenge the defendants' decisions not to retain plaintiffs Gouge and Klein as as teachers in Joint School District No. 1. Each plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages and an order compelling reinstatement in her teaching position with the defendant School District. Defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the actions are presently before the court.
No. 69-C-166 (Gouge) and No. 69-C-165 (Klein) present similar factual situations. Identical relief is sought on identical grounds. The cases have been briefed and argued together. For the purpose of deciding these motions, the cases will be discussed and decided together.
From the pleadings and affidavits on file in No. 69-C-166 (Gouge), I find that there is no genuine issue as to the following material facts:
There is dispute as to what occurred at the March 11 conference between Gouge and the Board. The Board members allege, by affidavit, that Gouge was presented with the reasons why nonrenewal was being considered, which reasons were substantially the same as those given by Johnson to the Board at its meeting of February 25, 1969; that Gouge was given an opportunity to and did present her side of the case; and that upon conclusion of the conference Gouge voluntarily left the conference without being asked to do so. Gouge alleges, by affidavit, that "at the outset of the conference she asked the members of the Board why they were considering terminating her employment"; that none of the Board members answered; that none of the Board members advised her of what they were considering as a basis for terminating her employment; that one Board member inquired "as to whether defendant Johnson had advised her of the reasons"; that she acknowledged receiving Johnson's letter of date February 26, 1969; that she was asked to read the letter in order to advise the Board of its contents (and apparently did so); that one Board member said that they had not received a copy of the letter and did not know of its contents; that Gouge attempted to explain why the local education association had recommended changing the program, but she was informed that the only thing that was important was the condition of her health; that she then explained that she had recently been examined by doctors who all said her condition was good; and that the meeting then ended. These allegations by Gouge are supported by an affidavit by a representative of the Wisconsin Education Association who accompanied Gouge to the March 11 meeting.
From the pleadings and affidavits on file in No. 69-C-165 (Klein), I find that there is no genuine issue as to the following material facts:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
DeCanio v. School Committee of Boston
...be lacking in due process. In Roth v. Board of Regents of State Colleges, 310 F.Supp. 972 (W.D.Wis), and later in Gouge v. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 1, 310 F.Supp. 984 (W.D.Wis.), a United States District Court judge in Wisconsin held that under his interpretation of the holding of Cafeteria & R......
-
Hayes v. Cape Henlopen School District, Civ. A. No. 4019.
...School District, 427 F.2d 319 (5th Cir. 1970) cert. denied 400 U.S. 991, 91 S.Ct. 451, 27 L. Ed.2d 439 and Gouge v. Joint School District No. 1, 310 F.Supp. 984 (W.D. Wis.1970) with Patton v. Bennett, 304 F.Supp. 297, 299 (E.D.Tenn.1969), this District has ruled, and recently affirmed, an a......
-
Wood v. Strickland 8212 1285
...v. Kelly, 329 F.Supp. 144, 150—151 (NH 1971); Cordova v. Chonko, 315 F.Supp. 953, 964 (ND Ohio 1970); Gouge v. Joint School District No. 1, 310 F.Supp. 984, 990, 992—993 (WD Wis.1970). 8 'Did Congress by the general language of its 1871 statute mean to overturn the tradition of legislative ......
-
Gannon v. Daley
...151, 154 (E.D.Va.1974); Schreiber v. Joint School Dist. No. 1, 335 F.Supp. 745, 747-48 (E.D.Wis.1972); Gouge v. Joint School Dist. No. 1, 310 F.Supp. 984, 990 (W.D.Wis.1970); Roth v. Board of Regents, 310 F.Supp. 972, 975 (E.D.Wis.1970), aff'd, 446 F.2d 806 (7th Cir.1971), rev'd on other gr......