BEFORE THE ARBITRATOR
In the Matter of the Arbitration of a Dispute Between
THREE LAKES SCHOOL DISTRICT
NORTHERN TIER UNISERV COUNCIL -
According to the terms of the 1993-95 collective bargaining agreement between Three
Lakes School District (District) and Northern Tier UniServ Council - Central (Union), the
parties requested that the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission designate a member
of its staff to hear and resolve a dispute between them regarding whether a violation of the
collective bargaining agreement occurred when the District issued a letter dated
1997 to Science Teacher Verdun Cecil. The Commission designated Sharon A.
hear and resolve the dispute and hearing was held at Three Lakes, Wisconsin on
1997. A stenographic transcript of the proceedings was made and received by
1997. The parties agreed to submit their initial briefs postmarked thirty days after their
receipt of the transcript in this case that the undersigned would exchange the briefs for the
parties. The parties reserved the right to file reply briefs and agreed that if they chose to do
so, these would be postmarked ten working days after their receipt of the other party's initial
brief. All documents in this case were received by November 14, 1997 whereupon the
The parties were unable to stipulate to an issue or issues for determination in this
However, the parties stipulated to allow the undersigned to select between the issues they
proposed, based upon the relevant evidence and argument in this case.
The District suggested the following issue:
Did the District act within the collective bargaining agreement
when it issued a reprimand
to Mr. Cecil? If not, what is the appropriate remedy?
The Union suggested the following issue for
Did the District act within the contract when
it issued a letter dated March 21, 1997 to
Mr. Verdun Cecil? If not, what is the appropriate remedy?
Based upon the relevant evidence and argument in this case,
Union's issue shall
be determined herein.
A.Any complaints that may jeopardize a teacher's professional
status made by a principal,
the administrator, or any source, shall be put in writing indicating the name of the complaint
and shall be promptly called to the teacher's attention.
B.No teacher who has fulfilled his/her
probationary contract requirement shall be non-renewed, suspended, discharged, or
disciplined (not to include reprimand) without just cause.
Any such action shall be subject to the grievance procedure set forth herein. All written
information bearing on any disciplinary action will be made available to the teacher.
. . .
A.A teacher shall at all times be entitled to have present a
representative of the
Association whenever requested to meet with the administration for the purpose of being
warned or disciplined for any infraction of rules or delinquency in professional performance.
When a request for such representation is made, no action shall be taken with respect to the
teacher until such representative of the Association is present.
. . .
A.No teacher shall be required to appear before the Board to be
discharged, non-renewed, suspended, or reduced in rank or compensation unless s/he has
been given prior notice of the specific reasons for such a meeting or interview and shall
be entitled to have a representative of the Association present to advise and represent him/her
during such a meeting.
A.No teacher shall be disciplined or
reprimanded in the presence of students.
. . .
Verdun Cecil, Grievant, has been the Science Teacher at Three Lakes School District
for the past sixteen years. Prior to March 21, 1997, Cecil had never been disciplined
of his superiors. Richard Parks has been the Principal of the Three Lakes School for grades
7 through 12 for the past four years. As Principal, Parks is Cecil's immediate supervisor;
Parks has the responsibility to evaluate teaching staff and the authority to discipline both
students and teachers. On March 21, 1997 Parks issued Verdun Cecil the following
This is a letter of reprimand regarding the lack of classroom
management observed within
your room. On March 12, 1997 we discussed concerns I had regarding the behaviors
students in your classroom and an apparent lack of discipline and management skills being
implemented. Based on what I observed on Thursday, March 13, 1997, it has not
Following a meeting you requested with me
on March 11, I asked you to stop back on
March 12. During our meeting, I explained reasons for three separate occasions
where I had
an expressed concern about your classroom management. You acknowledged and showed
an understanding of my concern and rationale. However, the following day,
March 13, as I
walked about the school handing out teacher contracts, I again came across a situation
involving your classroom management which concerned me. I entered your lab room at
approximately 2:15-2:20 pm (sic) to find you assisting a student on the computer while
students stood directly behind you paying hacky sack. We had just discussed improving
classroom management the day before. In our meeting on Wednesday, March 19, you
me the reason for the informality of the class. However, in a classroom setting,
a lab room where we have expensive equipment, I cannot accept allowing students to
sack. Your classroom management and
control must improve, and incidents of this
nature will not be tolerated in the future.
I request that you sign this letter indicating
you have received it, then return one original
to my office so I can place it in your personnel file. You also have the right to submit a
written response to this letter which I will review and attach to the file copy.
On April 4, 1997, Cecil filed a formal grievance requesting that the
March 21, 1997
letter be removed from his personnel file. Cecil later requested additional information from
Principal Parks regarding the reasons for Parks having drafted and issued the
letter. Parks issued a memo to Cecil dated April 14, 1997 (which is essentially
Parks' testimony) regarding the basis for Parks' issuance of the
March 21st letter. Parks'
April 14th memo reads in relevant part as follows:
. . .
On this day, as I was walking about the
halls of the building, I was in the back hallway
near your room when I heard some loud noises being made by students coming from your
lecture room 223. I stepped to the door to find two students acting boisterous and obnoxious
up at the front of your classroom. I stepped into your room and noticed you were not in the
lecture room. I asked the two students to please return to their seats and be quiet. I stepped
to the back of the room to see if you were in the attached lab room. There I observed two
students, one on the telephone, by themselves in an unsupervised area. I directed them back
into the lecture room, and I stood in front of the lecture room until you returned. After a
period of time, you returned to the room and mentioned you had been making some copies.
I stood near you at the front of the classroom and in a quiet manner mentioned the names of
the students who had been disruptive in the front of the classroom and the students who were
in the lab room on the telephone. I also mentioned to you that at a faculty meeting, a few
days previous, I mentioned that no teacher should leave students alone in their classroom
At the beginning of the 6th
hour, I observed Patti Antonuk on the telephone in front of
the high school office. I walked to her in the hall and requested that she hang up the phone.
I asked her to hang it up and get to her class. She had been tardy for other classes already
that day. She appeared upset.
However, she did hang up the phone and
proceeded down the hallway. I followed her
to her classroom which was a biology class with yourself. I was following a number of feet
behind her just to make sure she did arrive at her classroom. After she entered your
classroom 223, I continued to walk down the hall. Upon reaching the door of 222, I
hear Patti mentioning my and Mr. Greb's names. I stopped in the hall to wait for these
comments to end. However, I continued to hear Patti's voice so I returned to your
door. As I stepped to the door of your classroom, I noticed approximately four students who
had been gathered around Patti quickly return to their seats. Not having heard any comments
from yourself or your collaborating teacher, I continued into your classroom and stood near
Patti where I mentioned to her that the comments and talk needed to end. I hesitated for a
few seconds and was suprised (sic) by the noise level and socialization which the rest of the
class was doing at the time. I raised my voice in asking all of the students to sit in their
quietly until they were directed by yourself with the lesson, and that they should come to
classroom everyday entering the classroom sitting quietly until the lesson is ready to begin.
I did mention that if they were working on a group activity I could understand the
conversation. However, my interpretation at the time was that the students were socializing
and being nothing but disruptive to the classroom environment, not working on a lesson. I
then exited your room through the attached lab.
In the afternoon I was again walking about
the halls of school. As I walked past your lab
room 225, I noticed two students sitting at a lab table. I was aware you had a class going on
in 223 at the time. I decided to do some checking into the student schedules to see if they
were actually where they were supposed to be. Both students have other classes listed for
that period. However, upon checking with their teachers, I did find that they had passes to
be with you that hour. I did return back to the lab room to mention to the two girls about
procedures for having passes out of classes, and that I had checked into their being out of
their regularly scheduled class. As I approached them, I saw one of the girls slide a small
booklet under her science papers. I asked her for the booklet which she then handed to me.
I opened the booklet and noticed disgusting things they were writing in the booklet. I took
care of this part of the situation as a regular disciplinary issue. . . .
While I was in the lab room, I noticed the
lights dimmed in your class room 223. You
were showing a video tape. However, I could hear a
student who was seated near the door which
passes from room 223 to room 225 holding
a conversation and not watching the video for the lesson. I stepped to the door and more
clearly heard this student having a discussion about Star Wars movies instead of following
along with the video. It surprised me even more that this student was having the discussion
with yourself. You were seated at your desk at the front of the room and the student was
seated in the last chair of the row near that door. I believe this discussion was not only
inappropriate for that setting but was also disruptive to students who were trying to listen to
the video. I made mention to the student that he was in the class to learn about science and
not talk about movies. I also informed him that he should stop the discussion and start
listening to the science video. I then left the room.
Parks stated that Situation 1 occurred on February 17, 1997 and that Situations 2 and 3
occurred on February 20th. Parks also indicated that he did not reprimand
Mr. Cecil at the
time of the February 17th incident. Nor did Parks reprimand or
speak to Cecil regarding the
two incidents of February 20th at the time of those incidents.
Parks stated that on March 11, Cecil was in the Principal's office on an errand
Parks asked to see him the following day. Parks stated that he told Cecil that he could bring
a Union representative with him to the meeting if he chose. On March 12, 1997,
returned to meet with Parks but had no Union representative with him, as no Union
representative was available at that time. Parks and Cecil then discussed the incidents which
occurred on February 17th and
February 20th.. Parks stated he did not reprimand Cecil on
On March 18th, at Parks' request, Cecil met with Parks and
his Union representative
to discuss the hacky sack incident of March 13th. Parks stated that
he discussed the incidents
of February 17th, the two incidents of
February 20th as well as the hacky sack incident of
March 13th with Cecil at this time. Parks stated that he was not
satisfied with Cecil's
explanation why the hacky sack incident had occurred and that therefore on March 21,
Parks issued Verdun a written warning. Parks stated that the District had recently replaced
several microscopes in Cecil's lab and that he (Parks) did not feel it was appropriate for
students to be playing hacky sack around expensive equipment which could have been broken
and that he did not understand why students would play hacky sack with a teacher in the
Parks believed the definition of reprimand is a statement to an employe that there is
behavior that the Employer would like to see altered or changed. Parks stated he believed
his letter of March 21st to Cecil was a letter of reprimand. Parks
stated that he did not recall
if any glassware or breakables were visible during the March 13th
hacky sack incident but that
students were playing hacky sack near computers on March 13th in Cecil's
Parks stated that students are allowed to come to the office to get copies for teachers.
Parks stated that he never asked Cecil why "Star Wars" was being discussed in his class on
February 20th and that he felt the two students in the adjoining room
responsibility, as they had passes to be in his lab at that time. Parks admitted that if the
incidents in February had not occurred and if he had gotten the explanation Cecil ultimately
gave him regarding the March 13th hacky sack incident, he might not
have issued the
March 21, 1997 letter of reprimand on the strength of the hacky sack incident alone.
In regard to the classroom incidents in February and March, 1997, Verdun Cecil
stated the following. Regarding the March 13th hacky sack incident,
Cecil stated that that
class was a small one containing honors students in the senior class and that on the day in
question, the students had just finished an intense DNA lab and there was not enough
time (20 minutes remaining in the class) to start something new. The lesson was finished
the paperwork was handed in. At that time, a couple of students came to Cecil and
that one of the other students (Katrina) had been depressed because she had had no birthday
celebration at home the previous day. Cecil authorized the students to go to the Home
Economics room to get some snacks and something to drink and bring it back to have an
impromptu party for Katrina to try to lift her spirits.
At the time that Mr. Parks entered the room, Cecil knew that three students
Katrina) were playing hacky sack behind him as he was assisting another student on the
computer. (The students had been playing hacky sack for about five minutes prior to Parks'
entering the room and the game of hacky sack had been subdued and confined to a small
area). The students who were playing hacky sack were all soccer players and very good at
playing the game and that they were not near any equipment or in danger of damaging school
property. The entire party and the game of hacky sack were part of building up student,
Cecil stated that the microscopes that had recently been replaced in his laboratory had
not been broken by students, but were replaced because they were old and worn out. Cecil
stated that he has no rules regarding the playing of hacky sack in his classroom but that he
a general rule that students should not mistreat any equipment or each other in the classroom.
1 Cecil knew that students had been disciplined
for playing hacky sack at school when
damage had been done by hacky sacks in the halls and to lights during the current school
In regard to the February 17th incident, Cecil admitted that he
had left his room
unsupervised but he explained that it was because a student who was constantly losing papers
needed three copies of documents and Cecil had decided to copy them right away. Cecil
stated that students cannot go to the office to get copies because District policy is
that teachers should simply put documents to be copied in an area for aides to perform
duty and wait for that task to be performed before they get the copies back. Cecil stated that
he believed it was important for the student to have the copies immediately and he made the
judgment that he should get them for this student immediately.
In regard to the incident of February 20th involving Patti
Antonuk, Cecil stated that
this was a big class of approximately 26 to 30 students and that he had another teacher,
Mr. Phelps (Special Education Teacher) in the classroom to assist him with this class.
time of the incident, an assignment was on the blackboard and students knew that they were
about to take a major quiz fifteen minutes into the class time. Cecil admitted that the class
was not quiet, but he stated that students were working in groups and studying together. At
the time Parks entered the room, a student was at Cecil's desk asking questions and Cecil
concentrating on helping her. Also at this time, teacher Phelps was at the other end of the
desk helping two students who had questions. At this point, Cecil saw Patti come into the
room and go to the back of the class. Cecil stated that he was certain that Patti went to the
back of the classroom in the corner and spoke to three or four other girls before Mr. Parks
entered the classroom. Cecil admitted that this group of girls was probably not studying for
the test but that both he and Phelps were busy and could not address the situation that
In regard to the "Star Wars" incident, Cecil stated that students were watching the
movie in the lecture room; that he (Cecil) was behind the desk in the front of the room and
that the television upon which the movie was playing was in the corner of the room. Cecil
stated that Parks entered through the lab door and that the two students with the notebook
were out of Cecil's view and apparently not doing their work; that Parks must have
confronted those two students and then gone through the door into Cecil's lecture room. The
student who made the "Star Wars" comments and engaged Cecil in conversation thereon was
a student who needs to get attention immediately; that if the student is satisfied, he will get
back on task; but that if this student is ignored, he will continue to disrupt the class. Cecil
made the judgment that he should speak to this student about "Star Wars" rather than ignore
him based upon his experience with that student. Cecil was taken aback by Parks' conduct
toward him in the class during this incident.
Cecil stated that in his lab room, microscopes are generally stored in cabinets and
glassware is stored in the drawers and that the room is cleaned up regularly. Cecil also stated
that if you are standing in the lab room, you cannot see into the lecture room, or vice
as there is a solid wall between the two rooms although there is a doorway from the lab
into the lecture room at the rear of these rooms.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The District argued that the just cause standard was met in this case. The District
noted that Principal Parks personally observed each incident and talked to Cecil about them;
that the incident for which Cecil was disciplined involved potential damage to District
property and that the letter issued on March 21, 1997 was clearly a "reprimand" -
reproof or censure issued from a position of authority. As such, the District urged, just
was not required under the collective bargaining agreement for such a "reprimand".
The District anticipated that the Union would argue that the letter was not a
reprimand within the meaning of the contract but was discipline which should be covered by
the just cause standard of the labor agreement. However, the District noted that Cecil
suffered no punishment, no loss of pay and that Cecil did not have to do any extra work or
suffer a penalty because of the March 21st letter. Thus, the District argued
that the March 21st
letter was not discipline and that the just cause standard should not apply to it.
The District noted that discipline and reprimands are referred to separately in the
contract. In the District's view, whether just cause is required in this case or not is
immaterial, as just cause is specifically not required for a letter of reprimand and this
grievance should be denied. Even if just cause is required in this case, the District argued
Parks had ample justification to issue the letter based on the series of incidents and several
conversations admonishing the Grievant about his classroom management techniques. Thus,
the District urged that the grievance should be denied and dismissed in its entirety.
The Association urged that the District lacked just cause for disciplining Verdon
by its March 21, 1997 letter. The Union noted that Cecil was warned by Parks regarding the
incident of February 17th and two incidents which occurred on February
20th. These verbal
warnings should have been sufficient and the Union implied it was unfair of Parks to issue
March 21, 1997 letter based upon these same three incidents about which Parks had already
verbally warned Cecil.
The fact that Parks offered Cecil a Union representative at the meeting of
1997 indicated, in the Union's view, that Parks believed that the March
12th meeting was a
disciplinary one. In addition, by his own definition, Parks gave Cecil an oral reprimand on
March 12, 1997 at their meeting. After March 12th, no incidents of the
type which occurred
on February 17th and February 20th reoccurred.
Therefore those three incidents should have
been considered closed.
In regard to the hacky sack incident of March 13th the Union noted
that Parks stated
that he would not have issued the reprimand of March 21st to Cecil had the
incident been the sole incident involved. Yet, the March 21st letter states
that Cecil's behavior
"will not be tolerated in the future". Thus, the March 21st letter constituted
discipline not just
a negative evaluation by Parks. The Union asserted that the use of the word "discipline"
should require a broad interpretation and that the District failed to produce any evidence to
show that the March 21st letter was not disciplinary in nature. Thus, the
Union urged that the
just cause standard must be applied to the discipline Verdon Cecil received on March
The Union contended that Parks failed to investigate the incidents fully including
in February and the incident of March 13th. It was also unfair in the
Union's view, for Parks
to criticize Cecil repeatedly regarding these incidents and also to issue a formal disciplinary
letter thereon. It was significant in the Union's view that Parks admitted that letters such as
the one issued to Cecil if placed in a teacher's file could essentially become disciplinary in
nature. Based upon these arguments and the evidence of record, the Union asked that the
grievance be sustained and that the March 21, 1997 letter be removed from Cecil's file.
The District pointed out that the Association made several
misstatements in its initial
brief. For example, the District noted that the Union stated that the Grievant objected to
Parks' letter of reprimand being placed in his file because it was discipline while in fact
objection made no such claim. In addition, the District noted that the Union had misquoted
Article XVIII, leaving the parenthetical phrase "not to include reprimand" out of its quotation
of that portion of paragraph B.
The District took exception to the Union's argument that the Arbitrator would be
allowing the District to repeatedly reprimand an employe for the same incident without being
subject to discipline were she to sustain the grievance. The District stated that reprimands
are not subject to just cause. The Union's argument that a number of reprimands amounts
to discipline is simply incorrect in the District's opinion. The District argued that discipline
is distinct from reprimands, as discipline amounts to actual punishment while a reprimand is
merely censure or formal reproof and that no number of reprimands will bring about a
disciplinary effect. The District noted that the reprimand that Mr. Cecil received was not a
punishment and that Mr. Cecil received no other punishment along with his receipt of the
written reprimand from Mr. Parks.
The District also took issue with the Union's argument that because Parks suggested
to Cecil that Cecil have an Association representative present during their
discussions, Parks intended to discipline Cecil. The District noted that in Article
paragraph D it states that teachers shall at all times be entitled to have a representative of the
Union present to meet with the administration "for the purpose of being warned or
for any infraction of rules or delinquency in professional performance." Given the broadness
of this language, the District asserted that Parks was merely following the clear language of
the agreement when he suggested that Cecil have a Union representative present during their
The District also noted that the Union misquoted Parks' testimony in its brief. The
District noted that Parks stated that students are allowed to bring things to the office to be
copied; and that the Union failed to prove that it was due to Parks' angry reaction to Patty
Antonuk's criticism of him and another teacher that Parks decided to discipline Cecil.
Furthermore, the District noted that it found the Union's brief confusing regarding the
incidents which led to Parks' issuance of the letter of reprimand. Therefore, the District
sought denial and dismissal of the grievance in its entirety.
The Association noted that the District had admitted in several areas
its brief that
Parks had discussed Cecil's conduct with him on several occasions and that these were
essentially oral reprimands of Cecil. Thus, the Association asserted that the issuance of a
written letter of reprimand based upon the same incidents that Parks had repeatedly discussed
and criticized Cecil regarding constituted discipline. Further, the Union noted that anything
that is placed in a teacher's personnel file which addresses that teacher's reputation should
be considered discipline. Finally, the Union noted (for the first time) that the fact that Parks
criticized Cecil in front of students on at least two occasions also constituted separate
violations of Article XVIII, paragraph G, which paragraph prohibits administrators from
disciplining or criticizing teachers in front of their students. Therefore, the Association
sought that the grievance be sustained and that the written reprimand be expunged from
Cecil's record, letting the prior oral warnings by Parks stand.
The language of Article XVIII, paragraph B is clear. Paragraph B
indicates that non-probationary teachers ". . . shall not be non-renewed, suspended,
discharged or disciplined
(not to include reprimand) without just cause." On its face, paragraph B excludes
from consideration under the just cause standard of this contract.
The word "reprimand" is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary, New
Ed. (Houton Mifflin Co., 1981), as follows: "To rebuke or censure severely; a
formal rebuke or censure." I note that the dictionary describes "rebuke" as
criticizing or reproving sharply and that it defines "censure" as severe criticism. This
tends to show that a reprimand involves oral or written criticism, reproof or rebuke but not
punishment beyond this. As the contract fails to qualify the term "reprimand," it is
to conclude that both oral and written reprimands were intended to be exempt from the just
Given the above analysis, the question arises whether Parks' letter of March
constitutes a "reprimand" within the meaning of Article XVIII, Paragraph B. I believe based
upon the record evidence that it does. In this regard, I note that Cecil suffered no additional
punishment as a result of Parks' issuance of the March 21st letter. The fact
that the letter of
March 21st was placed in Cecil's personnel file does not constitute
punishment at this point
in time. On this point, I note that Cecil has never before been criticized, either formally or
informally, by any supervisor. 3 Therefore, I
must assume that the March 21st letter is the
only document (relevant to this case) in Cecil's personnel file which is critical of Cecil's
performance as a teacher. 4 In the
circumstances of this case, because Cecil suffered no
additional punishment as a result of Parks' placement of the March 21st
letter in his personnel
file, the placement of this letter of reprimand in Cecil's file is exempt from the just cause
standards applicable to discipline other than reprimands.
Where the contract does not provide a just cause standard for reprimands, a lesser
standard can reasonable be inferred. The question arises whether Parks' issuance of the
March 21st written reprimand was arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or
done in bad faith.
Based upon the record evidence in this case, I find that Parks' actions in issuing the March
21st letter to Cecil were arbitrary.
I note that Parks' letter of March 21st refers to Parks' and Cecil's
discussion of Cecil's
classroom management skills and student behavior on March 12, 1997. This reference to the
prior discussion of the incidents which occurred on February 17 and 20 as well as Parks'
statement that Cecil's classroom management skills had not improved showed that the March
21st letter was intended as a formal criticism of Cecil's conduct both on and
before March 13,
1997. Therefore, to properly assess the appropriateness of the March 21st
letter we must look
to the incidents which occurred on February 17 and February 20th and
thereof. In regard to the incident of February 17, it is undisputed that prior to February
Cecil was aware that no teacher should leave his/her students unsupervised in a classroom
that despite this fact Cecil chose to leave his students alone to go to the office to copy certain
documents for one student. Thus, Parks' assessment of the February 17th
In regard to the incident involving student Patty Antonuk on February
teacher Phelps and Mr. Cecil were present in the classroom, I note that Parks entered Cecil's
classroom, found the students to be disruptive, noisy and off-task and asked them to take
their seats without inquiring of either Teachers Cecil or Phelps concerning the
underlying circumstances prior to his (Parks') interference. Similarly, in regard to the
which occurred later on February 20th involving "Star Wars," Parks
interrupted a discussion
that a student was having with Cecil, corrected the student (that he should be in class to learn
about science and not to talk about movies) and told the student to stop the discussion and
start listening to the science video. It is clear that during both February
20th incidents, Parks
interfered in the conduct of Cecil's class without first inquiring regarding the underlying
circumstances, that Parks' comments to students implied his disapproval of Cecil's teaching
performance and that Parks' comments also tended to undermine Cecil's authority over his
In regard to the incident of March 13th, I note that although Parks
and Cecil discussed
the hacky sack incident on March 19, (wherein Parks refused to accept Cecil's explanation
for the occurrence of that incident), Parks did not question any other witnesses regarding the
incident before he decided to issue the March 21st reprimand to Cecil. In
all of the
circumstances of this case, and given the fact that Parks based his issuance of the March
letter upon his criticism of Cecil's teaching style on February 20, 1997, and March 13,
I find that Parks' letter of March 21, 1997 was arbitrarily issued and any references thereto
must be expunged from Mr. Cecil's file and I issue the following
The District did not act within the contract when it issued a letter
1997 to Mr. Verdon Cecil. Therefore the District must remove the letter of March 21, 1997
and any references thereto from Mr. Cecil's personnel file.
Dated at Oshkosh, Wisconsin this 10th day of February, 1998.
Sharon A. Gallagher, Arbitrator
1. The District has no policy regarding
playing hacky sack in school.
2. There is no evidence on this record that Teacher Phelps
was issued a reprimand or
counseled for his part in the March 13th incident.
3. No evidence was placed in this record to show the
contents of Cecil's personnel file. It
was undisputed that Cecil had never been disciplined prior to March 21, 1997.
4. A different conclusion would likely pertain had Cecil
been repeatedly reprimanded and had
those reprimands been documented in Cecil's personnel file and used by the District in the