If you want to have some fun, find an attorney who would be willing to take on a pro bono case for class action against the principal, the school board, the school district, and the city for coercion and emotional distress inflicted on the students and the teachers/admin who did not want to do what the principal wants.
It seems the principal wants to ignore the law and even the school policy and implement their own opinions instead. That is action outside the scope of the principal's authorized legal authority, which means at that moment the principal is acting in their own personal capacity, and NOT as a representative of the school.
That opens the principal up to a direct lawsuit against them, in their personal name, and not as a representative of the school. You just have to find an attorney who is willing to go to the mat on it.
The United States Supreme Court case of Scheuer v. Rhodes settled this issue. Most attorneys do not even know this case because, like doctors, they are told to focus on certain aspects of law and ignore the rest. Conveniently, "the rest" is where we find our rights against the government.
"The immunity of a state from suit has long been held not to extend to actions against state officials for damages arising out of willful and negligent disregard of state laws. The reach of the rule is evident in Scheuer v. Rhodes,166 in which the Court held that plaintiffs were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment or other immunity doctrines from suing the governor and other officials of a state alleging that they deprived plaintiffs of federal rights under color of state law and seeking damages, when it was clear that plaintiffs were seeking to impose individual and personal liability on the officials. There was no “executive immunity” from suit, the Court held; rather, the immunity of state officials is qualified and varies according to the scope of discretion and responsibilities of the particular office and the circumstances existing at the time the challenged action was taken."
-- Q
I took note of it, but did not write down the specific number of the Q post. Also, this part of the court decision was not the "holding" which is the most important.
The holding says this:
“When a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States” -- Scheuer v. Rhodes 416 US 232 (1974)
If you want to have some fun, find an attorney who would be willing to take on a pro bono case for class action against the principal, the school board, the school district, and the city for coercion and emotional distress inflicted on the students and the teachers/admin who did not want to do what the principal wants.
It seems the principal wants to ignore the law and even the school policy and implement their own opinions instead. That is action outside the scope of the principal's authorized legal authority, which means at that moment the principal is acting in their own personal capacity, and NOT as a representative of the school.
That opens the principal up to a direct lawsuit against them, in their personal name, and not as a representative of the school. You just have to find an attorney who is willing to go to the mat on it.
The United States Supreme Court case of Scheuer v. Rhodes settled this issue. Most attorneys do not even know this case because, like doctors, they are told to focus on certain aspects of law and ignore the rest. Conveniently, "the rest" is where we find our rights against the government.
Q mentioned this case specifically --
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-11/suits-against-state-officials
"The immunity of a state from suit has long been held not to extend to actions against state officials for damages arising out of willful and negligent disregard of state laws. The reach of the rule is evident in Scheuer v. Rhodes,166 in which the Court held that plaintiffs were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment or other immunity doctrines from suing the governor and other officials of a state alleging that they deprived plaintiffs of federal rights under color of state law and seeking damages, when it was clear that plaintiffs were seeking to impose individual and personal liability on the officials. There was no “executive immunity” from suit, the Court held; rather, the immunity of state officials is qualified and varies according to the scope of discretion and responsibilities of the particular office and the circumstances existing at the time the challenged action was taken."
-- Q
I took note of it, but did not write down the specific number of the Q post. Also, this part of the court decision was not the "holding" which is the most important.
The holding says this:
“When a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the Federal Constitution, he comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States” -- Scheuer v. Rhodes 416 US 232 (1974)