Opinion ID: 806387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Donnelly’s Post-Leave Evaluations

Text: Shortly after Donnelly returned from leave on December 15, 2006, Chakar conducted an in-class evaluation. Chakar concluded that Donnelly’s teaching was “Satisfactory” – the highest rating3 – but gave the lower rating of “Needs Improvement” for Professional Responsibility due in part to the absences Donnelly had accumulated during his leave. As with previous evaluations, Chakar suggested ways in which Donnelly could improve his performance. Donnelly was evaluated again on January 8, 2007, this time by defendant-appellee Will Washington, an assistant principal at Woodlands. For the first time during his twoand-a-half years as a teacher in the District, Donnelly received an overall rating of “Unsatisfactory,” the lowest rating possible. Among other significant criticisms of Donnelly’s pedagogy and classroom management, Washington criticized Donnelly’s excessive absences, including those taken during Donnelly’s medical leave. Donnelly contested the results of his evaluation and complained that he was being mistreated for taking leave for surgery. On January 12, 2007, Chakar criticized Donnelly orally and in writing for his absences, including those taken during his medical leave. Because of concerns regarding teacher absenteeism, every teacher evaluation conducted during 2006-2007 included reference to that teacher’s number of absences, irrespective of the reason for those 3 In regular evaluations, teachers in the District were given an overall rating of “Satisfactory,” “Needs Improvement,” or “Unsatisfactory,” and given the same ratings in the five specific categories of Classroom Management, Knowledge of Content, Positive Student Relations, Demonstration of Effective Teaching Strategies, and Professional Responsibilities. 8 absences. During that same period, the District terminated the employment of a tenured teacher for excessive absenteeism. On March 20, 2007, Chakar evaluated Donnelly again. According to Donnelly’s recollection, which Chakar does not dispute, immediately after the evaluated lesson Chakar praised Donnelly’s performance and offered no suggested improvements. Nevertheless, Chakar’s written evaluation gave Donnelly an overall rating of “Needs Improvement.” Chakar issued this rating notwithstanding his assessment that Donnelly was “Satisfactory” on three of the five evaluation categories: Classroom Management, Knowledge of Content, and Demonstration of Effective Teaching Strategies. Among other critiques, Chakar again noted Donnelly’s excessive absences, including those that occurred during his medical leave.