Contrasts and comparisons between three board of trustees cases

Legal cases are an essential part of any democratic society because they set precedents which aid in the creation of new laws. The purpose of this discussion is to compare and contrast following three legal cases; Dorsett v. Board of trustees for state colleges and Universities, Riggin v. Board of trustees of Ball University, and Brouillette v. Board of directors of merged area IX. We will examine the impact of these cases on our democracy.

Comparisons and Contrasts

Dorsett v. Board of Trustees for state colleges and universities was decided in the 5th district circuit court in 1991. The plaintiff in this case alleged that "various administrative decisions had harmed his reputation, that he had been unfairly denied summer employment and salary increases, and that he had suffered other miscellaneous harassments." (Dorsett v. Board of Trustees for State Colleges & Univs) In this case the plaintiff sued his employer in an effort to change or affect some of the administrative policies that were prevalent at the time. The plaintiff alleged that the administrative policies caused harm to his career and that his constitutional rights were denied.

The Fifth Circuit court ruled in favor of the defendant. The court concluded that these matters were trivial and simply an interfaculty dispute. The court also ruled that the purpose of the administrative policies of the state were designed to protect students and provide their educational needs. The ruling stated, the continuing retaliatory actions alleged by [the plaintiff] appear to be nothing more than decisions concerning teaching assignments, pay increases, administrative matters, and departmental procedures. We recognize that such decisions might seem extremely significant to [the plaintiff] who has devoted his life to teaching. But we believe, nevertheless, that the alleged harms suffered by [the plaintiff] do not rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation." (Dorsett v. Board of Trustees for State Colleges & Univs.)

Riggin v. Board of Trustees of Ball State University is similar to the previous case in that they both name an institute of higher education as defendants. Both cases also deal with the relationship between employee and employer. In Riggin v. Board of Trustees of Ball State University the plaintiff asserted that Indiana Open Door Law was violated when the Trustees of the University met in private to discuss the further employment of Riggins. The law states that "meeting of an agency considering the public's business must be open to the public, unless there is a specific statute permitting closure." ("Tapping Officials' Secrets")

The university counterclaimed that the professor was incompetent and exhibited "failure to cover pertinent topics in the course syllabus, poor organization of lectures, failure to hold class regularly, and failure to provide opportunities for students to meet with the professor on an individual basis." The findings of the court were similar to that of Dorsett v. Board of Trustees for state colleges and universities. The court concluded that the University had the right to use its own discretion to protect students from the incompetence of an instructor.

Riggin v. Board of Trustees of Ball State University along with other court cases brought into question the Open Door Law. This case can also be compared to Dorsett in that both cases questioned established laws. Dorsett questioned constitutional rights and Riggins questioned Indiana's Open Door Law.

The final case of Brouillette v. Board of Directors of Merged Area IX also dealt with the relationship between employee and employer. In this particular case the plaintiff contended that the defendant's allegation of tardiness would infringe on the plaintiffs ability to be employed in the future. Brouillette argued that the Board of Directors acted with malice when asserting that tardiness affected his abilities as an employee. The court concluded that the Board of directors was not wrong in reporting the tardiness of Brouillette. The court ruled that no harm was done because "the allegation of tardiness is minor and does not impair an employee's ability to obtain future employment." (Brouillette v. Board of Directors of Merged Area IX)