The school office ignored request for help to control defiant student behavior. When I was paying attention to one student one boy, playful, knock another down and caused a bloody cut... 7 stitches.
The mother wanted to know how it happened, so the Principal offered me up for sacrifice.
He went on to say he would recommend I not work anywhere. I've worked in the system since 1998 with no such accusations. Do I have a case in the violation of my rights in anyway?

What rights do you think were violated? If I follow, you were responsible for the children in the class and were paying too much attention to one student while another student was injured.

While I personally don't think this one incident is enough to get you fired, I also don't see where any rights were violated. Are you a member of a union? If so, talk to the union rep.

I don't see any rights violated, if you are a member of the teachers union you ask for a hearing and to be represented.

But you are the teacher and in the class room you are responsible. If you were allowing behavior then you may actually be responsible.

What rights do you think were violated? If I follow, you were responsible for the children in the class and were paying too much attention to one student while another student was injured.

While I personally don't think this one incident is enough to get you fired, I also don't see where any rights were violated. Are you a member of a union? If so, talk to the union rep.

Hi Scott,

I have no legal qualifications but I would disagree with this. The fact that a student is injured in a teachers care is not enough to establish that the teacher has not exercised.'duty of care'. In my country anyway.

No, the principal does not decide if you were adequate in your 'duty of care'. What legal qualifications does he/she have which allowed them to determine the merits or other wise of this case.

The right that is being violated is the presumption of innocence.

Tut

Hi Scott,

I have no legal qualifications but I would disagree with this.

You are free to disagree, but it would help if you disagreed with what I actually said, not what you read between the lines.

I did not say that there was enough to determine negligence, nor did I say the principal had the right to judge. And the right of innocence until proven guilty only applies to our justice system, not employment decisions. So, in fact, there is nothing in what I posted, that you are actually disagreeing with.

The OP did not say that he was actually fired. But most teachers perform under a contract. It is the terms of that contract that apply. Therefore the only rights that might have been violated are the rights extended under the terms of the contract. Which is why I recommended talking to a union rep.

That would be a tough case since you're probably not union, are you? In the classroom, the teacher--regular employee or sub--is "in loco parentiis", meaning acting in the place of the parents. That's a big responsibility not to be taken lightly. The laws are all on the side of the parents, as they should be, to protect the students. Sadly, lawsuits happen all the time over small injuries. This one required stitches, so it's not so small as to be overlooked and brushed away. That's unfortunate. I'm sure you were as on top of things as you could be. I spent 25 years teaching, and I know how quick kids are when you're distracted for even a second. It takes a great deal of training and experience to avoid incidents, and most subs never receive that sort of background. That's really where the fault lies: Lack of preparation.

BUT... I disagree with the principal's thought that you should not work anywhere. That sounds like an overreaction and is probably not worth worrying about. If there's another district nearby where you can apply to sub, I suggest you do that. If it turns out that you've been blacklisted, then you might have a case. You would have to consult a lawyer to find out.

I think the principal made a comment to direct the heat away from himself/herself. This might be in hopes of satisfying the mother's anger. When staff are sued administarion is often included in the shot gun approach. You would not want to work for this person again, would you? Go to others schools in this district or other places close to you. Statistically this principal will be gone in 3-5 years and you will be back to normal.

And the right of innocence until proven guilty only applies to our justice system, not employment decisions.

Hi Scott,

Are you sure about that? I though everyone was entitled to ,'due process' under the law' A contract is a legal document.

Tut

Hi Scott,

Are you sure about that? I though everyone was entitled to ,'due process' under the law' A contract is a legal document.

Tut

I really wish people would read the Bill of Rights before they cite it.

The Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Also the Bill of Rights was meant to constrain the powers of government, not necessarily non governmental enterprises.

In the OP's case, he is not being deprived of life, liberty or property. The only rights he has are those provided in his contract. So, yes I am sure about it.

That would be a tough case since you're probably not union, are you? In the classroom, the teacher--regular employee or sub--is "in loco parentiis", meaning acting in the place of the parents. That's a big responsibility not to be taken lightly. The laws are all on the side of the parents, as they should be, to protect the students. Sadly, lawsuits happen all the time over small injuries. This one required stitches, so it's not so small as to be overlooked and brushed away. That's unfortunate. I'm sure you were as on top of things as you could be.


Hi Schoolmarm,

I would have thought that if it could be demonstrated that said person was 'on top of things as you could be' then they were exercising the necessary requirement of duty of care. If someone is injured in your care this does not necessarily mean you were in neglect of duty.

Your school is not covered by 'Duty of Care' legislation?

I really wish people would read the Bill of Rights before they cite it.

In the OP's case, he is not being deprived of life, liberty or property. The only rights he has are those provided in his contract. So, yes I am sure about it.

Hi Scott,

No, I didn't read the Bill of Rights because we don't have a Bill of Rights over here. But, yes, I should have realized that the OP was in the U S or at the least your laws are different.

"The only rights are those provided in his contract"... I am sure glad I live over here.

You can probably delete or disregard my comments to Schoolmarm because my claims obviously don't apply over there.

Tut

Since the school system is very different "over there" (I assume you are referring to the UK) the description made it seem clear this was in the US.

However, the US Bill of Rights was based on the Magna Carta. And contract law is not very different between us.

Substitute teachers are not on contract. They work on call for one or more school districts. They are called in for the day. Not being called does not constitute being fired. From what we have been told so far there has been no breech of duty of care.

It sounds as though it was merely an accident, and not due to a lack of appropriate supervision on your part.

He used you as a scapegoat, but that does not mean that he will follow through or that his recommendation will prohibit you from subbing at other schools. I wouldn't be surprised if you were called back to fill in for someone at that school even.

Ballengerb1 is right. Here in the twigs where I live and taught, subs are not on contract like regular staff in most districts. They do sign an agreement, but it's not the sort of contract most would imagine. But there are urban districts that hire--on contract--"permanent subs" who are considered regular staff, show up every day, have pensions waiting for them when they retire (even health benefits in some districts), and are assigned on a day-by-day basis to the classes where they are needed (or help out in the office, library, etc when they're not). The OP didn't specify what his/her situation was in that regard. I based my answer on the assumption that this was a standard, contract-free sub situation, but that could be wrong. No contract, no union, no representation, and no leg to stand on.

I wouldn't fight this case myself simply because the result could be a personal civil suit against the OP by the parents if the process drags on publicly. Moving on to greener pastures is my best suggestion. Every teacher walks a thin line of responsibility that is unnerving at best and heart-attack fodder at worst. I had the parents of a White Supremacist student try to sue me for making the class read The Contender while the parents of the sole Black student in class threatened to sue me if I didn't. I suggested the parents duke it out, but the union lawyer did not see the humor in that.

DoulaLC is also correct that it could be classified as an "accident" of sorts. But as the teacher who was assigned the kids whose parents had already sued one or more teachers or districts, and having earned that joy because I was top-notch at documentation and maintaining a level of indisputable fairness, I can assure you that parents don't believe "accident" unless it's something precipitated by the student all alone during a time when no supervision would be expected. If more than one student was involved, then they will assume that the person in charge was negligent, and it's difficult to prove otherwise.

By the way, here in the US (at least in my part of it--other jurisdictions might have different laws), the kid is "in school" and the school is held responsible for anything that happens to him/her from the minute s/he leaves home in the morning to the minute s/he arrives back at home after school hours. Don't spread that around. ;) Many parents don't know that, and if they did, we'd never see the end of lawsuits resulting from things beyond our control.

Thanks to the respondants. I should clarify a couple things about my status and subbing in general. I do have a union. BUT, it doesn't take genius to see it only fakes support for subs. They offer a few lines of, just-between-you-and-I, simpathy then recommend other schools. When I uttered "lawyer" the fuzzy embrace broke-off... followed immediately with,"Ohh, you're going to be like that, huh?!" You see subs in the public school system, are like Neo-slaves... not respected... assumed to be inferior, not as good as the "real" thing. Many school staff reinforce this image. They seldom bother to take action against wild, abusive students. It's a party and administration treat you like hired entertainment. They insist the sub come with a prepared lesson but trash your expertise by switching you to any old hat wearing act. The teacher you're replacing almost NEVER leaves the required lesson plan. In my case the Principal ignored my calls for assistance. On one occasion, I found him ease-dropping on my class,NOT to help, but to construct a lie about ME. I've been framed, denounced and sentenced without a hearing. If this is America, something is off. Yes, I am retired but I come with degrees Yale, Penn, Oxford, awards, long teaching experience and two other major distinctions. I just cannot feel inferior to incompetent people? They expect a sub to take everything without a ripple. Perhaps I only imagined I grew up in America.

First, from what I know of the education system, I would say your characterization of how subs are treated is probably not unusual. On the other hand, I don't think that it has anything to do with this being America. It has to do with the nature of the education system, not the legal framework of the country.

Also I don't blame your union rep from reacting to mentioning a lawyer. I still don't think that any of your rights were violated. I think that what you should have done is see what the union would have done for you before you proceeded further.

So where do things stand now?