Board of Ed. of Pulaski County v. Burkett
| Decision Date | 23 May 1975 |
| Citation | 525 S.W.2d 747 |
| Parties | BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PULASKI COUNTY, Kentucky, Appellant, v. Garvis BURKETT, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
John T. Mandt, Somerset, for appellant.
Arthur L. Brooks, Lexington, Lester H. Burns, Jr., Somerset, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Pulaski Circuit Court which determines that KRS 161.790(3) and (4) violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. We reverse and remand.
The rationale of the judgment is that a 'tenured teacher' who is removed in the manner provided there is deprived of property interests and contract rights without procedural due process, because the school board is cast into and occupies the roles of employer, investigator, accuser, prosecutor, jury and judge, and this combination of roles is inconsistent with traditional concepts of fundamental fairness.
A unanimous Supreme Court of the United States rejected this exercise in intellectual sophistry when it decided Withrow v. Larkin, --- U.S. ---, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712, (decided April 16, 1975). It would serve no useful purpose to restate the principles enunciated there. Suffice it to say they sustain the validity of KRS 161.790(3) and (4).
The process of judicial review provided by KRS 161.790(6) and the form of hearing mandated by our decision in Osborne v. Bullitt County Board of Education, Ky., 415 S.W.2d 607 (1967) cloak a 'tenured teacher's adversely affected by board action with additional and sufficient blankets of protection.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent herewith.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Commonwealth, No. 2005-CA-001588-MR (Ky. App. 10/19/2007)
...unconstitutional risk of bias in administrative adjudication[.]" Id. at 46-47 (emphasis supplied), cited in Board of Ed. of Pulaski County v. Burkett, 525 S.W.2d 747, 747 (Ky. 1975). We tolerate the increased risk of bias as a matter of policy and because administrative adjudication expedit......
-
Reis v. Campbell County Bd. of Educ.
..."cast into and occupie[d] the roles of employer, investigator, accuser, prosecutor, jury and judge ...." Board of Education of Pulaski Co. v. Burkett, Ky., 525 S.W.2d 747, 747 (1975). See Osborne v. Bullitt County Board of Education, Ky., 415 S.W.2d 607 (1967). Moreover, prior to its amendm......
-
LaGrange City Council v. Hall Bros. Co.
...due process. Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 48-52, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 1465-67, 43 L.Ed.2d 712, 724-26 (1975); Board of Education of Pulaski County v. Burkett, Ky., 525 S.W.2d 747 (1975). However, we believe that fundamental fairness does not permit the same person to exercise decision-making a......
-
Jones v. Cabinet for Human Resources, Div. for Licensure and Regulations
...agency that has investigative, prosecutorial and adjudicative functions is not violative of due process. Board of Education of Pulaski County v. Burkett, Ky., 525 S.W.2d 747 (1975); Winthrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975). KRS 216.570 provides for judicial revi......