JANE BRADLEY V CRESTWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JANE BRADLEY, UNPUBLISHED January 13, 1998 Petitioner-Appellant, v No. 194791 State Tenure Commission LC No. 95-000024 CRESTWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent-Appellee. Before: Saad, P.J., and O'Connell and M.J. Matuzak,* JJ. MEMORANDUM. Petitioner appeals as of right from a decision of the State Tenure Commission ("Commission") upholding her discharge from a guidance counselor position with respondent school district. MCL 38.104(7); MSA 15.2004(7). We affirm. Petitioner admittedly initiated and carried out a cheating scheme involving two students that was designed to help one of them graduate. Petitioner argues that the Commission’s decision upholding her discharge was not supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the record as a whole. To the contrary, there was substantial evidence to support the Commissioner's decision. This Court must afford due deference to the Commission’s administrative expertise and must not invade the exclusive province of administrative fact-finding by displacing the Commission’s choice between reasonably differing views. See Beebee v Haslett Public Schools (After Remand), 406 Mich 224, 231; 278 NW2d 37 (1979). We find it unnecessary to decide whether the school district was required to prove that petitioner’s conduct had an adverse effect on the school community because, whether it was required to do so or not, the school district did prove the adverse effects of petitioner’s conduct.1 Affirmed. * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ /s/ Henry William Saad /s/ Peter D. O'Connell /s/ Michael J. Matuzak 1 Though we need not rule on the issue, we note that our Court made it clear in Satterfield v Grand Rapids Schools, 219 Mich App 435; 556 NW2d 888 (1996), that a school district need not prove that the teacher's misconduct had an adverse effect on other teachers and students. Id. at 438-439. -2­

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.