Kimble V Board Of Education Case Study

Mary Ellen Kimble v. The Worth County R-III Board of Education In this scenario, I feel that the school’s success was highly dependent on their ability to provide “competent and substantial evidence” of Ms. Kimble’s “immoral conduct”(Mary Ellen Kimble v. The Worth County R-III Board of Education, p. 2).On three separate instances, Kimbell was found guilty of “untruthfulness and taking property not her own without consent or permission”(Mary Ellen Kimble v. The Worth County R-III Board of Education, p.7). The precedent set by Meredith v. Board of Education required a degree of credibility among witnesses, which the board was also able to provide. Although Kimbell ultimately returned the stolen items when confronted, this did not compensate for her actions. Due to the nature of her position it was deemed that she was unfit to perform her duties, because her behavior breached “even the

The school board claimed that Ms. Cookson was originally dismissed due to her team’s participation in hazing activities, which was in clear violation of the school’s policies. When presented at the summary judgement it was found that the school had “articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for declining to rehire Cookson” and provided sufficient evidence through parent complaints/ formal letters of disciplinary action (Kelly Jo Cookson v. Brewer School Department et al., p.4).In contrast, when reviewed by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court it was determined that sexual discrimination could have been a factor. The time of when the superintendent made his decision on Cookson’s dismissal and when he obtained the knowledge of her sexual orientation was a point of contention, therefore, it was deemed inappropriate for the case to be handled in a trial setting. Ultimately, Cookson withdrew her claim of sexual discrimination, however, it is unclear as to her