Nexus Requirement

Historical Context

Key Concepts
Morrison vs. State Board of Education
Nexus Requirement
Fitness to Teach

Case Examples

Morrison vs. State Board of Education

The Facts
1969 California Supreme Court Case
Veteran teacher, Marc Morrisons former male lover reported their
affair to his superintendent.
The superintendent asked for his resignation and Morrisons teaching
credentials were revoked on basis of immoral conduct.

The court reviewed his case and took a critical look at the rights to a
private life for teachers.
(Shotwell, 2010, p. 55-6)

Morrison vs. State Board of Education

The Findings
The court found that the terms immoral or unprofessional conduct
or immoral turpitude are too broad in definition and opinion.

Opinions on the terms vary across economic, social, cultural, and

regional boundaries.
Because of this the court determined that by having these terms in
Educational codes the employing institutions had too much power in
teacher dismissal cases.
(SCOCAL, 1969)

Morrison vs. State Board of Education

The Results
The case presented a major shift in the landscape of public school
teachers.

Since the inception of public education 200 years ago public school
teachers were thought as being owned by the public.
Thus, they had no tangible right to a private life.

Morrison vs. State Board of Education took a huge step in changing

this concept.
(Shotwell, 2010, p.56-7)

Morrison vs. State Board of Education

The Results
The court acknowledged, but ultimately rejected, the ever-present
Protestant idea of morality.

Instead they chose to employ a Nexus Requirement that better fit

into the secular ideals that have become present day society.
They did this in an attempt to limit the school districts power and
willingness to delve into teachers private lives.
(Shotwell, 2010, p. 57-8)

Nexus Requirement

What is It?
In teacher dismissal cases the Nexus Requirement calls for a direct
connection be made between a teachers behavior and their fitness
to teach.
It is especially important in cases where a teacher is fired for conduct
outside the classroom.
Normally a court will uphold a teachers right to privacy unless a
considerable nexus is found between the behavior and classroom
effectiveness.

Nexus Requirement

Four Main Areas A Nexus is Found

1. The incident involved the student population or youth of a similar
age.

2. The incident was widely publicized.

3. The incident occurred in a public place and thus the teacher
forfeited his (or her) right to privacy.

4. The incident was just part of a larger, irremediable, chronic

problem or behavior pattern.
(Hooker, 1994, p. 9)

Nexus Requirement

How Does it Help?

The Nexus Requirement affords some protection for teachers in
relation to their private lives.

It helps define ambiguous terms such as morality and immoral.

Provides a legitimate precedence for future court cases on similar
issues.

Keeps the conversation where it mattersin the schools.

Nexus Requirement Basic Flow Chart

Should a teacher be
fired for their out of
class behavior?

Teacher Dismissed

Yes

Was their behavior

criminal and explicitly
stated in the districts
code of conduct.

No

Does it directly
affect the teachers
performance in the
classroom?

Teacher Retained

Fitness To Teach

What is It?
Morrison vs. State Board of Education paired the Nexus Requirement
with a Fitness to Teach policy.

They did this in order to help administrators determine whether a

teachers out of class behavior has affected their ability in the
classroom.
The court provided a list of 8, nonexhaustive, factors that should help
school administrators in determining a teachers fitness to teach.
(Shotwell, 2010, p. 58-9)

Fitness To Teach

8 Factors
1. the likelihood that the conduct may have adversely affected
students and fellow teachers.

2. the degree of such adversity anticipated.

3. the proximity or remoteness in time of the conduct.
4. the type of teaching certificate held by the party involved.

5. the extenuating or aggravating circumstances, if any, surrounding

(Shotwell, 2010, p. 58-9)
the conduct.

Fitness To Teach

8 Factors Continued
6. the praiseworthiness or blameworthiness of the motives resulting
in the conduct.

7. the likelihood of the recurrence of the questioned conduct.

8. the extent to which disciplinary action may inflict an adverse impact
or chilling effect upon the constitutional rights of the teacher
involved or other teachers.
(Shotwell, 2010, p. 58-9)

Case Example 1) Kinniry vs. Abington

School District

The Facts
Kinniry, a tenured teacher, pled guilty to trafficking counterfeit
designer watches.

His school district brought charges against him stating that he was an
ineffective elementary school teacher due to his conduct.
The school district claimed that Kinniry offended the morals of the
community and set a bad example for students.
The court upheld Kinnirys dismissal on moral grounds.
(Miller, 1997)

Case Example 1) Kinniry vs. Abington

School District

Analysis
The court based their decision on the federal offenses Kinniry had
been charged with were federal crimes and thus they offended the
morals of all communities in the nation.
This was enough for the court to decide that his crimes did in fact
inhibit his ability to effectively teach.

(Miller, 1997)

Case Example 2) Zelno vs. Lincoln

Intermediate Unit No. 12 Board of Directors

The Facts
Zelno, a tenured teacher, was found guilty of her third DUI.
She was sentenced to incarceration during the weekends and
summer until her sentence was completed.
She taught in a program for students in drug and alcohol
rehabilitation programs.

She was fired for immorality and intemperance when her employee
became aware of her convictions.
(Haskins, 2002)

Case Example 2) Zelno vs. Lincoln

Intermediate Unit No. 12 Board of Directors

Analysis
The Nexus Requirement is fulfilled in this case because her conduct
directly relates to her teaching.

Zelno taught students in drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs

while she, herself had three convictions for alcohol related charges.
The court decision is based off of the idea that her conduct made her
a bad role model for her students especially since she taught
students struggling with alcohol problems.
(Haskins, 2002)

References

Haskins, P. (2002, July 9). Zelno v. Lincoln intermediate unit no. 12 board of directors. Retrieved from
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/edu/ed370/ABSTRACTS%2003/Haskins.htm
Hooker, C. P. (1994). Terminating teachers and revoking their licensure for conduct beyond the schoolhouse gate. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Organization on Legal Problems in Education, San Diego,
California.
Miller, C., & Aumiller, D. (1997, July). Kinniry v. abrington. Retrieved from
http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/edu/ed370/abstracts/kinniry.html
SCOCAL. Morrison v. state board of education. (1969, November 20). Retrieved from
http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/morrison-v-state-board-education-27498
Shotwell, K. D. (2010). Secretly falling in love: America's love affair with controlling the hearts and minds of public school
teachers. Journal Of Law & Education, 39(1), 37- 73.
Retrieved from http://ezproxy.shsu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eft&
AN=502132579&site=eds-live&scope=site