News

A cheerleading sponsor has been ordered to pay over $14,000 in attorneys’ fees to the school principal after filing a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination. The decision in the case of Ward v. Theret adds a judicial exclamation point to the well publicized dispute involving cheerleaders at McKinney North High School. Moreover, the case illustrates how the Texas Education Code protects school employees from personal liability.

Background

Michaela Ward taught Social Studies and sponsored the cheerleaders at McKinney North, starting in January, 2006. In the spring of that year, a disagreement arose over what sort of penalties should be handed out to several members of the varsity cheerleading squad. The case of the McKinney Five received widespread publicity, especially in North Texas. To explain why, we offer the following quote from the court’s decision:

This particular group of girls had a history of general disrespect for teachers and other school officials, they had been caught leaving school grounds without permission, violating the school dress code, and making obscene gestures toward school staff. There were instances of underage drinking at off-campus parties, and one instance where at least one of the girls arrived at a homecoming celebration intoxicated. During the semester, photographs surfaced depicting some of the girls in sexually suggestive poses. One of the photographs showed the girls, in their North McKinney uniforms, holding large candles shaped like male genitalia.

At which point all hell broke loose. However, the court put it more judiciously noting that “these disagreements lead to the end of Ms. Ward’s tenure at McKinney North High School.” Ms. Ward did not go quietly. She sued the district, the superintendent, the principal and several others.

In her response to the suit, Linda Theret, the principal, asserted that she was immune from any personal liability due to provisions in the Texas Education Code. She asked the court to dismiss the case and order Ms. Ward to reimburse her for the attorneys’ fees she spent defending the suit.

Ms. Ward dropped the suit in November, 2007. She filed a “non-suit” which is basically a way of voluntarily dismissing the case. However, Ms. Theret persisted in pursuing her claim for attorneys’ fees. On December 11, 2007, the court dismissed Ms. Ward’s case, but also ordered her to pay $14,071 in attorneys’ fees and costs to Ms. Theret.

The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision on July 17, 2009. The court relied on TEC 22.0511, which grants immunity to professional school employees who use their discretion and judgment on the job. There are some exceptions, but those involve physical injuries arising from the discipline of students or the use of a motor vehicle. This case was about an employment decision—the termination of Ms. Ward’s employment. It had nothing to do with a motor vehicle and did not allege any physical injuries arising from student discipline. The principal was entitled to immunity from liability.

Another section of the TEC provides that if a school employee is determined to be immune under 22.0511, then they are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees pursuant to TEC 22.0517. The appellate court relied on that provision to affirm the ruling. Ms. Ward is liable for the principal’s attorneys’ fees.

As school administrators prepare for another school year, we thought you would find this one interesting. Look for a complete report on this case, and all the other new developments in school law, in the next issue of The Texas School Administrators’ Legal Digest.

THIS BREAKING NEWS STORY PROVIDED COURTESY OF WALSH, ANDERSON, BROWN, GALLEGOS & GREEN, P.C.
VISIT WWW.WALSHANDERSON.COM FOR INFORMATION ON THE FIRM’S MODEL STUDENT DRESS CODE.