Carly Davis

EDAD 638
Legal Case Study #1

1. Gaylord v. Board of Education, Unified District No. 218, Morton County

Court of Appeals Kansas, 1990. 14 Kan.App.2d 462, 794 P.2d 307.
2. Issue: Did the Board of Education have enough evidence to terminate Gaylord for
insubordination?
3. Facts: Gaylord attempted to receive a personal day two times and was denied both times.
His wife called in the morning of May 21st, 1987 to say he was ill and could not come in
to work. Later that day Bovina called Principal Barnes to talk about the interview he had
that morning with Gaylord. The next day Gaylord came to school and filled out a sick
leave form and attached a doctors note to it. Gaylord was called into Principal Barnes
office and was told to hand in his keys. The court ruled in favor of the board of education
stating the school acted within their scope of authority and lack of substantial evidence
on Gaylords part (Gaylord, 1990, p. 2).
4. Holding: The Kansas courts had not dealt with a similar case before so they looked into
previous cases made in other districts. The ruling of the court was that Gaylord did not
have enough evidence and that he had gone against the schools policies. Therefore, the
Board of Education won the case.
5. Rationale: Courts have defined insubordination as a willful disregard of express or
implied directions of the employer and a refusal to obey reasonable orders (Gaylord,
1990, p. 1). The Kansas court used this definition to make their decision. Gaylord knew
that he was not following the school policies and refused to listen to his superiors.

6. Dissenting/Concurring Opinions: The courts thought Gaylord knew what he was doing
was wrong and against the school policy. They also believed he went against the ruling of
his superiors.
7.
As a teacher, I have mixed feelings about the decision. I cannot decide whether this was
too harsh on Gaylord or a great way for the school to set an example of what happens when
you don't follow the rules. It is really hard for me decide whether I feel bad for Gaylord or if
he actually deserved the termination. It would be nice to know more of a background story
and see if he had any offenses against him already.
I feel that his interviewed could have been rescheduled to a day that allowed him to be
gone properly and he would not have had to lie about being sick. He was pretty sly in
thinking that if he actually did go to the doctor and get a note that he would be fine. I don't
think I would have the guts to do that.
Personally, I feel like the rule of not being able to be gone the first or last week is a little
farfetched. I am in a wedding the first weekend the teachers are to be back at school and I
have to travel the Friday before the wedding. I am having to take a personal day that day and
am hoping it gets approved. I don't believe we have the same rule as this school but it is very
possible. Before reading this case I thought I was going to take the day off no matter what so
I can get home but now that I know I could lose my job I have a different outlook on it.
On the other hand, Gaylord got caught in a lie. You should never feel like you have to lie
about being gone from school. Had he been upfront with the administrators he might have
been able to get the day off and keep his job. Other teachers should take this as an example of

why you should always be honest to your administrators. There is no reason for being
untruthful in any circumstance.
As an administrator, the decision is extremely difficult but the rules are the rules. In this
case the principal and superintendent followed all of their rules and regulations perfectly.
There are no easy situations for an administrator. In every situation, big or small, there will
always be someone who does not like the outcome. If the administrator keeps in mind what
will be best for the district and follow all of the rules, then they will know they made the best
decision.
Being an administrator will not be easy, no matter the position; being an assistant
principal, a building principal, or as high as the superintendent will always be difficult. In
this particular case I'm sure there were many teachers upset by the decision but aim also sure
there were many that were happy by the decision. If a teacher is going to lie about being sick
then they shouldn't be working at the school anyway. By an administrative stand point, you
don't want to have employees working at your school that are dishonest. There is no way of
knowing what else they are capable of lying about.
This case is definitely eye opening to what can happen to you if you go against the rules.
Both teacher and administrator views were hard to see because this could have gone so many
ways. It would have been nice to know more background information to really decide
whether he deserved the termination or not.