# Charles Crawley v. Board of Education of Marion County, Kentucky

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · September 2, 1981 · 658 F.2d 450

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9468332

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles CRAWLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MARION COUNTY, KENTUCKY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 2, 1981
- **Citations:** 658 F.2d 450; 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 18054
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Martin
- **Judges:** Edwards, Martin, Enslen
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9468332

## Opinion text

BOYCE F. MARTIN, Jr., Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Plaintiff is entitled to a hearing under the relevant Kentucky law only in the event of either termination of his continuing service contract or administrative demotion. Because plaintiff is currently under contract with the Board, continues his employment as an administrator, and concedes that he has not been demoted, he has not established that he has been denied a procedural right under Kentucky law.
In my view, the action taken by the Board was a “lateral transfer” to an administrative position of similar rank and pay, within the meaning of section 161.720(9) of the Kentucky Revised Statutes. The Board has the power under Kentucky law to take such an action without a hearing.
The majority relies on dicta in Lewis v. Board of Educ. of Johnson County, 348 S.W.2d 291 (Ky.1961) for the proposition that transfer to a “non-certified” administrative position amounts to termination under the Teachers’ Tenure Act, Ky.Rev.Stat. 161.720(4), 161.790, 161.800. Evidently the majority failed to read Lewis carefully. In that case, a school principal refused a proffered reassignment to the post of transportation supervisor. The school board considered Lewis’ refusal to be an abandonment and a valid termination of his employment status. It is clear that the event which triggered Lewis’ potential right to a hearing under state law was the actual termination of his employment contract with the school board. The case was remanded for determination of Lewis’ employment status, and for consideration of whether the reassignment was “unworthy or undesirable.”
Based on my reading of Lewis , I cannot subscribe to the majority’s reasoning which leads to the following assertion: “plaintiff’s claim that the transfer to a non-certified position amounted to ‘termination’ as a ‘teacher’ does appear to be accurate,” under the Teachers’ Tenure Act. (See majority opinion at p. 452.) Under Kentucky law, neither teachers nor principals have an entitlement to the specific job to which they are assigned. Snapp v. Deskins, 450 S.W.2d 246 (Ky.1970); Huff v. Harlan County Board of Educ., 408 S.W.2d 457 (Ky.1966). Under section 161.720(9), lateral transfers to positions of similar rank and pay or minor alterations in pay increments are not considered demotions. See Cooper v. Board of Educ. of Somerset, 587 S.W.2d 845 (Ky.App.1979). The record shows that the transportation position was similar in rank to the principal position, and afforded plaintiff an equivalent salary. *455 The fact that plaintiff was disgruntled by the prospect of overseeing transportation personnel does not negate the legitimacy of the Board’s actions.
The record does not support the majority’s conclusion that plaintiff was “terminated” by a legitimate lateral transfer. The record is devoid of evidence to suggest that plaintiff’s continuing service contract was terminated, suspended, or impaired in any way. Under section 161.720(4), such a contract is for the employment of a teacher, and may only be terminated in accordance with section 161.790 or 161.800. The majority has misread the language of the statute in tacitly substituting “employment as a teacher.” It has essentially invented a nonexistent procedural requirement which promises to hamper effective personnel administration in the Kentucky school system. Under Kentucky law the procedural safeguards of section 161.790, which governs termination, do not apply to either the assignment of duties or the reduction of salaries. See Sparks v. Board of Educ. of Ashland, 549 S.W.2d 323 (Ky.App.1977). However, according to the majority opinion in this case, they now do.
For these reasons, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9468332. Public record. Not legal advice.