Floyd v. Board of Ed. of Greenup County
| Decision Date | 14 December 1979 |
| Citation | 598 S.W.2d 460 |
| Parties | Leo FLOYD, Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF GREENUP COUNTY, H. J. Webb, Individually and as Superintendent of the Greenup County Schools; Richard Bentley, Elmer Stone, and Larry Tackett, Individually and as Members of the Board of Education of Greenup County, Appellees. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Arthur L. Brooks, Jennifer B. Coffman, Lexington, for appellant.
Roger R. Cantrell, Armstrong, Cantrell & Hatfield, Greenup, for appellees.
Before GANT, HOWARD and WHITE, JJ.
The appellant, Leo Floyd, was employed in the Greenup County Board of Education as an administrator from the 1966-67 school year through the 1974-75 school year, at which time he was appointed Superintendent of the Greenup County School System to serve the remaining term of the former superintendent. Upon the expiration of this term, on June 30, 1978, the appellant was not reappointed as superintendent. Instead, he was assigned to the position of a classroom teacher, thus incurring a substantial reduction in salary.
The appellant brought suit in Greenup Circuit Court, contending the action taken by the Board of Education was in retaliation to the appellant's exercise of his First Amendment rights by expressing his political views. Secondly, it is asserted the Board failed to follow the procedures required by K.R.S. 161.760 and 161.765 in demoting him to a teaching position and reducing his salary. K.R.S. 161.765(2) establishes procedures for the demotion of administrative personnel; K.R.S. 161.760 sets forth the standards required for the reduction in salary of a teacher. There is no dispute that the statutory procedures enumerated in both statutes were not followed by the Board of Education in failing to reappoint the appellant to the office of superintendent, placing him in a teaching rather than administrative position, and in reducing his salary. The appellee states only that these statutes are not applicable to the appellant. As the appellant served as a superintendent, it is contended by the appellee that neither statute would afford him any protection. The appellant, on the other hand, maintains that since he gained tenure as an administrator prior to becoming superintendent, he is entitled to the protection of K.R.S. 161.765(2) before being demoted to a classroom teaching position, and further, under the provisions of K.R.S. 161.720, he remained a teacher, thus entitling him to the procedures required in K.R.S. 161.760. The trial court granted summary judgment on all issues in favor of the appellee.
The appellant correctly points out K.R.S. 161.162 prohibits discrimination against a teacher or employee of any district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wicker v. Board of Educ. of Knott County, Ky.
...We discount this argument because Wicker's initial complaint did not raise the Teacher Tenure Act. Also, Floyd v. Board of Educ. of Greenup County, 598 S.W.2d 460 (Ky.App.1979), held that a school superintendent is not afforded the protections of the Act, and Wicker later admitted that his ......
-
Atencio v. Board of Educ. of Penasco Independent School Dist. No. 4
...acts. We have found but few cases which have considered the narrow issue in this present case. In Floyd v. Board of Education of Greenup County, 598 S.W.2d 460, 461 (Ky.Ct.App.1979), the Kentucky Court of Appeals said that under the Kentucky Teacher Tenure Act a school superintendent "obvio......
-
Gardner v. School Dist. No. 55
... ... , Chairman, Gary Haddock, Vice Chairman, Diane Powell, Clerk of the Board of Trustees of School District No. 55; and Fred Higley, Individually and ... from eligibility for privileges accorded teachers, see Floyd v. Board of Education, 598 S.W.2d 460 (Ky.App.1979), interpreting K.R.S ... convening since Hailey have not reciprocated the Blaine County prosecutor's efforts at applying their law ... --------------- ... 1 ... ...