tenure hearing in Louisiana

2001Coleman v. Orleans Parish School Board, 93-0916, 94-0737, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/5/97), 688 So.2d 1312, 1314 , writ denied 97-0622 (La.4/25/97), 692 So.2d 1087 .

2001Coleman v. Orleans Parish School Board, 93-0916, 94-0737, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/5/97), 688 So.2d 1312, 1314 .

2001Coleman v. Orleans Parish School Board, 93-0916, 94-0737, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/5/97), 688 So.2d 1312, 1314 , writ denied 97-0622 (La.4/25/97), 692 So.2d 1087 .

2000Substantial evidence is “evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions.” Coleman v. Orleans Parish School Board, 93-0916, 94-0737, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 4th Cir.2/5/97), 688 So.2d 1312, 1314-1315 , writ denied, 97-0622 (La.4/25/97), 692 So.2d 1087 .

2025Federal courts examining Article 3 ( U.S. Const. art. 3, § 2, cl. 1) standing require a similar showing.' Specifically, a petitioner seeking injunctive relief for a threatened future injury must show the threatened injury is " certainly impending, or there is a substantial risk that the harm will occur." See Book People, Incorporated. v. Wong, 91 F. 4th 318 , 328 ( 5th Cir. 2024) ( citations omitted).

2017Assignment of Error Number Three-Substantial Evidence RPSB argues in assignment of error number three that the district court 'erred in concluding that substantial evidence of willful neglect of duty by Powell that occurred during the 2000-2001 school year was "not relevant." ' In its written reasons, the district court had found that, in effect, the entire tenure hearing was flawed, as Ms. Powell had not been afforded due process and had not received the opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Fuentes v. Cortese , 407 U.S. 67 , 80, 92 S.Ct. 1983 , 1994, 32 L

2017Assignment of Error Number Three-Substantial Evidence RPSB argues in assignment of error number three that the district court 'erred in concluding that substantial evidence of willful neglect of duty by Powell that occurred during the 2000-2001 school year was "not relevant." ' In its written reasons, the district court had found that, in effect, the entire tenure hearing was flawed, as Ms. Powell had not been afforded due process and had not received the opportunity to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Fuentes v. Cortese , 407 U.S. 67 , 80, 92 S.Ct. 1983 , 1994, 32 L

2017Bd. , 332 So.2d 822 (La.1976), and further stated: [I]t would be contrary to logic and reason to admit evidence that was not presented at the tenure hearing and then determine if the action of the board was "supported by substantial evidence, or conversely, an arbitrary decision and thus an abuse of discretion." To determine if the board was reasonable or unreasonable in its decision, the Court should review only the evidence presented to the board at the hearing and not new evidence presented on appeal.

2009See generally LSA-R.S. 17:441-446; Rousselle v. Plaquemines Parish School Bd., 93-1916 (La. 2/28/94), 633 So.2d 1235, 1241 .

2007Mr. LeBan cites to Jones v. Rapides Parish School Bd., 634 So.2d 1197 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/19/1993) for guidance on how to handle a case such as this whereby the superintendent fails to formally institute charges against a tenured teacher until five years after the student made the complaint, and then waited another two years to hold the tenure hearing.

2003Our review of the record shows the content of the performance evaluations and the warnings/reprimands were developed in oral testimony before the School Board. [5] As noted in Allo v. Horne, 95-713 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/13/96) , 672 So.2d 961 , writ denied, 96-1554 (La.9/27/96), 679 So.2d 1352 , this is an instance where both the district court and the court of appeal sit as appellate courts in reviewing school board decisions.

2003Our review of the record shows the content of the performance evaluations and the warnings/reprimands were developed in oral testimony before the School Board. [5] As noted in Allo v. Horne, 95-713 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/13/96) , 672 So.2d 961 , writ denied, 96-1554 (La.9/27/96), 679 So.2d 1352 , this is an instance where both the district court and the court of appeal sit as appellate courts in reviewing school board decisions.

1997Gaulden v. Lincoln Parish School Board, 554 So.2d 152, 157 (La.App. 2d Cir.1989), writ denied, 559 *1315 So.2d 126 (La.1990). [1] The appellate court thus must determine whether the record contains "a rational basis for the school board's determination supported by substantial evidence insofar as factually required." Meyers v. Sabine Parish School Board, 499 So.2d 690, 696 (La.App. 3d Cir.1986), writ denied, 501 So.2d 236 (La.1987); Lewis v. East Feliciana Parish School Board, 452 So. 2d 1275, 1280 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 458 So.2d 123 (La.1984).

1997Gaulden v. Lincoln Parish School Board, 554 So.2d 152, 157 (La.App. 2d Cir.1989), writ denied, 559 *1315 So.2d 126 (La.1990). [1] The appellate court thus must determine whether the record contains "a rational basis for the school board's determination supported by substantial evidence insofar as factually required." Meyers v. Sabine Parish School Board, 499 So.2d 690, 696 (La.App. 3d Cir.1986), writ denied, 501 So.2d 236 (La.1987); Lewis v. East Feliciana Parish School Board, 452 So. 2d 1275, 1280 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 458 So.2d 123 (La.1984).

1989See, e.g., Circello v. GEICO, 425 So.2d 239 (La.App. 1st Cir.1982), writ denied 429 So.2d 145 (La.1983); Brocato v. Brocato, 364 So.2d 152 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1978). *155 We have considered the substantive question of whether sworn testimony at a tenure hearing is an essential requirement of due process; the board concedes the precise issue is res nova in Louisiana, although a few jurisdictions have resolved the question favorably to the board's position. [1] The board further urges that when the district court "reviews" a school board's action at a tenure hearing, the parties may introduce addit

1985School Bd., 736 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir.1984), the federal court provided judicial review for a teacher who had been both suspended and subjected to a tenure hearing.

1982The leading case with reference to the procedural requirements in a teacher tenure case is Lewing v. DeSoto Parish School Board, 238 La. 43 , 113 So.2d 462 (1959), wherein the Court observed: "The Teachers' Tenure Act (LSA-R.S. 17:441-444), under which plaintiff's petition was filed, has for its object the protection of worthy teachers.

1982The leading case with reference to the procedural requirements in a teacher tenure case is Lewing v. DeSoto Parish School Board, 238 La. 43 , 113 So.2d 462 (1959), wherein the Court observed: "The Teachers' Tenure Act (LSA-R.S. 17:441-444), under which plaintiff's petition was filed, has for its object the protection of worthy teachers.

1982(There is no dispute that the pertinent incidents occurred on September 21, 1978.) In addition to the testimony of the students, as summarized in Landry, supra, the testimony of several teachers and the Superintendent was taken during the tenure hearing.

1982(There is no dispute that the pertinent incidents occurred on September 21, 1978.) In addition to the testimony of the students, as summarized in Landry, supra, the testimony of several teachers and the Superintendent was taken during the tenure hearing.