School Board Of Palm Beach County v. Gary Groover

337 So. 3d 799 (2022)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P alleged that he was demoted as an assistant principal to a teaching position by the principal of Boynton Beach High School in retaliation for his participation in an investigation by the School Board's Office of Inspector General (IG). The investigation concerned (1) a semi-pro basketball team's lease of the school's gym for basketball games at a reduced rate by using the non-profit certificate of an unrelated entity and (2) the team's use of the gym without a lease. P presented two witnesses in his case: himself and the IG investigator. D called four witnesses: (1) a former principal of the high school; (2) the principal who demoted P; (3) a witness who conducted a review of the evening programs supervised by P; and (4) the School Board's regional superintendent at the time of demotion. D claimed P was a non-performing employee whose demotion had nothing to do with his participation in the IG investigation. The jury's verdict found that D demoted P because he participated in the IG investigation. The jury awarded him $140,000 for lost wages and $30,000 for mental anguish. Following the entry of the final judgment, P moved for equitable relief, seeking reinstatement to his prior position or, alternatively, five years of front pay and benefits, including lost pension accumulation, in lieu of reinstatement. P's motion stated that '[i]n accordance with § 112.3187(9)(a), Fla. Stat., the relief 'must include' 'reinstatement of the employee to the same position held before the adverse action was commenced, or to an equivalent position or reasonable front pay as an alternative relief.'' D argued that reinstatement 'would be impracticable' in light of P's performance issues and his alleged 'admission that he knew he was being non-appointed to an assistant principal when [the principal] told him he should start looking for other position[s] . . . .' D argued that the request for front pay should also be denied because he was employed under an annual contract with no expectation of renewal at the expiration of his contract. An award of front pay 'would be unconscionable, in light of P's documented poor performance as an assistant principal.' D opposed the motion for equitable relief because (1) there were no vacancies of assistant principal positions, (2) P exhibited 'performance issues,' (3) P was on an annual contract and had no expectation of continued employment, and (4) awarding P five years of front pay would amount to a windfall. The trial court denied P's motion for equitable relief, finding that 'there are extraordinary circumstances that justify the denial of reinstatement and front pay.' P and D appealed.