A. The superintendent, acting on behalf of the board of directors, shall employ all personnel needed for the operation of the schools. The superintendent, with the approval of and acting on behalf of the board, may issue individual contracts for teaching positions. The board shall review all personnel appointments on a periodic basis and may require employment justification by the superintendent as it deems necessary.
B. Except as provided in section 15-1325, the superintendent shall place each new employee in a probationary employment status. The board shall determine the term and conditions of probationary employment status. The superintendent may discharge any probationary employee who is unsuited or not qualified for employment at the schools. On satisfactory completion of probationary employment, employees shall be granted permanent employment status.
C. The superintendent may discharge, only for cause, any permanent employee at the schools. The superintendent shall file with the board a written report of the action and the reasons for the discharge. Permanent employees who are discharged from employment at the schools are entitled to due process protections in the manner provided by the board, including a hearing before the board of directors. The due process procedures will be developed in consultation with the employees.
D. The board shall prescribe policies for employees, including employee conduct and discipline.
Notes of Decisions
Deuel v. Arizona State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 799 P.2d 865 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 10× “He was terminated for cause on December 12 pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-1326(C). On December 22, appellant requested a post-termination hearing and asked that he be sent any applicable policies and procedures governing termination proceedings.”
Proksa v. Arizona State Schs. for Deaf & the Blind, 74 P.3d 939 (Ariz. 2003).
· cites it 15× “¶ 10 We do not quarrel with the premise that the employment relationship is contractual, and that employment contracts, like others, may not be unilaterally modified. But the critical issue in this case is not whether there was a contract of employment, but rather whether one…”
Baker v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 105 P.3d 1180 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “The legislature then amended the statute and deleted the “permanent employment” language for certain employees, including the plaintiffs.”
Bower v. Arizona State Sch. for the Deaf & the Blind, 704 P.2d 809 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “On September 16, 1983, he was given written notice of dismissal from employment at the school pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-1326(B). Termination was effective immediately without further pay.”
Proksa v. State Schs. for Deaf & Blind, 74 P.3d 939 (Ariz. 2003).
· cites it 15× “¶ 10 We do not quarrel with the premise that the employment relationship is contractual, and that employment contracts, like others, may not be unilaterally modified.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-1326(B) — 4 cases
Proksa v. Arizona State Schs. for Deaf & the Blind, 74 P.3d 939 (Ariz. 2003).
“¶ 10 We do not quarrel with the premise that the employment relationship is contractual, and that employment contracts, like others, may not be unilaterally modified. But the critical issue in this case is not whether there was a contract of employment, but rather whether one…”
Baker v. Arizona Dep't of Revenue, 105 P.3d 1180 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“The legislature then amended the statute and deleted the “permanent employment” language for certain employees, including the plaintiffs.”
Bower v. Arizona State Sch. for the Deaf & the Blind, 704 P.2d 809 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
“On September 16, 1983, he was given written notice of dismissal from employment at the school pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-1326(B). Termination was effective immediately without further pay.”
Proksa v. State Schs. for Deaf & Blind, 74 P.3d 939 (Ariz. 2003).
“¶ 10 We do not quarrel with the premise that the employment relationship is contractual, and that employment contracts, like others, may not be unilaterally modified.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 15-1326(C) — 3 cases
Deuel v. Arizona State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 799 P.2d 865 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“He was terminated for cause on December 12 pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-1326(C). On December 22, appellant requested a post-termination hearing and asked that he be sent any applicable policies and procedures governing termination proceedings.”
Proksa v. Arizona State Schs. for Deaf & the Blind, 74 P.3d 939 (Ariz. 2003).
“¶ 10 We do not quarrel with the premise that the employment relationship is contractual, and that employment contracts, like others, may not be unilaterally modified. But the critical issue in this case is not whether there was a contract of employment, but rather whether one…”
Proksa v. State Schs. for Deaf & Blind, 74 P.3d 939 (Ariz. 2003).
“¶ 10 We do not quarrel with the premise that the employment relationship is contractual, and that employment contracts, like others, may not be unilaterally modified.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.