DAVIS v. BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF ANDERSON COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, 1:14-cv-00279

Priscilla Davis, a teacher with Anderson Community School Corporation (ACSC), was referred to the PAR program after a Board of Review recommendation; PAR is a contractual instrument with a nine-member Board (4 admins, 5 union teachers) used to evaluate non-first-year teachers and first-year teachers; a consulting teacher observes Davis and reports to the Board; Davis was moved to Intervention after the Board’s consideration of the consulting report; the Board later voted 9-0 to initiate contract-cancellation proceedings under Indiana law; Davis was placed on paid administrative leave and pursued an appeal that was stayed by a state court order; the case was removed to federal court and the court granted summary judgment for defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Davis have a property interest in continued employment that requires due process before PAR action?	Davis has an entitlement to continued employment under the Contract and Indiana law.	PAR provides contract-based evaluation, not additional due process guarantees beyond statutory protections.	No legitimate entitlement; due process satisfied by statutory process; PAR does not create extra procedural rights.
Was the Board’s suspension with pay a due process deprivation?	Suspension with pay without process violates due process rights.	Suspension with pay is not a deprivation of a property right.	Dismissed; suspension with pay is not a due process deprivation.
Are Indiana due-course-of-law and vagueness claims viable against PAR?	PAR procedures violate Indiana Constitution Article 1, § 12 and are vague.	PAR Guidelines are not penal statutes and thus not void-for-vagueness; claims fail.	Claims dismissed; due-course claim rejected and vagueness claim rejected.
Does Davis state a breach-of-contract claim against ACSC/Union on the alleged failures (support, materials, prep/lunch, education assistance)?	There were contractual breaches affecting Davis’s classroom and performance.	Placing these allegations under general due-process claims; no independent damages pleaded.	If construed as a breach claim, damages are required; the court finds no independent breach; otherwise, the issue overlaps with due process and is resolved against Davis.

Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (establishes legitimate entitlement concept for due process scrutiny)
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972) (recognizes potential entitlement based on institutional policies; hearing may be required)
Loudermill v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (minimum procedural requirements; due process before removal when state procedure lacks protections)
Colburn v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 973 F.2d 581 (7th Cir. 1992) (relevant to professors' property interests and due process in university settings)
Buttita v. City of Chicago, 9 F.3d 1198 (7th Cir. 1993) (limits on corporate/municipal discretion in termination contexts)