|
Fired teacher’s case on appeal
by Megan Card, correspondent · News · November 02, 2011
After two years in court proceedings, former West Branch Community School teacher Terry Christiansen found his case in front of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Oct. 26 at the University of South Dakota’s School of Law in Vermillion, S.D.
On appeal, Christiansen’s attorney, Michael Pitton, contended the decision that originally removed Christiansen’s lawsuit to federal court, which resulted in the case being dismissed in March and Christiansen’s motion to remand to state court denied.
Currently, Christiansen is seeking damages under Iowa law and U.S. Code section 1983, civil action for deprivation rights, for false statements made during an incident with a middle school student on Sept. 19, 2008. After a West Branch student alleged Christiansen of physically abusing and/or assaulting him on a bus, Christiansen’s teaching, coaching and bus-driving contracts with the school district were terminated.
Seen before the circuit court panel of Chief Judge William Riley, federal Judge Roger Wollman and senior Judge C. Arlen Beam, Pitton said the federal court failed to apply proper standard when considering dismissal, and had therefore failed to draw reasonable and unbiased inferences on Christiansen’s behalf.
Representing the school district at the appeal, Terry Abernathy offered Christiansen’s failure to exhaust state administrative remedies before filing the action as defense to the federal court’s decision.
“The court correctly concluded that the case should be dismissed,” Abernathy said. “The appellant (Christiansen) claims that the (family) did not consent to the removal of the case to federal court within the 30-day period, but when the (family) joined in a separate brief with the West Branch Appellees, it was within jurisdiction of its expiration.”
Abernathy said the family had notified Christiansen of their intent to join in the removal of the case to federal court, and by filing their consent four days after the 30-day period expired, they made it clear their intent was to join in the removal.
Pitton refuted Abernathy’s statement, responding that the state does not require an appellant like Christiansen to exhaust all efforts before filing an action under section 1983. He also contended that the family failed to meet the 30-day period in which they could have consented to the removal to federal court.
“The district court’s failure to properly assess my client’s case, which has already robbed him of a 30-year career in education as well as his reputation, has also denied him any means to recover from the false statements made against him,” Pitton said. “Due to these failures, and others made in the interpretation of state law and lack of timely consent by the (family), this case should have been remanded to state court.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
