Two years ago at a City of Roseville School Board meeting the Board considered a proposal to adopt an anti-nepotism rule that would apply to teachers and personnel working in schools with students in grades kindergarten through six. The superintendent of the district is female and four of the six members of the Board are women. The rule would prohibit married couples from working in the same school or supervising each other regardless of whether they work in the same school. In the event that the policy is violated, the district requires that the teacher who has been working for the school district for the shortest period of time would have to transfer to a different school or department. If there is no other position available, then he\she would have to resign. The Board found that in the past when married teachers work in the same building it created tension between couples if they did not agree on policy issues in the school. Moreover, when one member of the couple supervised the other it gave the appearance of favoritism or conflicts of interest. This often lead to resentment on the part of other employees and they complained to the school board. In one instance the Board reversed the decision of a supervisor because of the appearance of favoritism. This problem was found to be particularly severe in schools with students in kindergarten through six grade.
 

The Board was also presented with other evidence concerning the affects of the policy. Ninety-five percent of all the teachers in kindergarten through grade 6 are female. Only five percent are males and all of the males have been hired within the past three years while all of the female teachers were hired at least ten years ago. Since all of the female teachers have been employees longer the policy would favor them if they marry a male teacher since all the females have been employees longer than the males. The males would, therefore, be forced to transfer and may even have to resign. The Board was also told that the presence of a higher percentage of female teachers in the lower grades is not an accident. Historically, women were encouraged to teach at the lower grades while men were discouraged and often not considered for teaching in grades K to 6. The Board was told that this process certainly occurred in Roseville and males were intentionally not considered for these positions. However, this type of discrimination probably stopped three or four years ago. The Board voted by a 4 to 2 margin to adopt the policy after the superintendent urged the members to adopt the policy. (The four women voted for the policy.) The two dissenting votes were cast by the male members of the Board. They argued the policy discriminates and should not be adopted.
 

Sam and Susan are school teachers who both taught the fifth grade in the same school last year. Sam has worked for the district for two years while Susan is a ten year employee. Over the summer they were married. During the same summer Susan applied for and was hired as the new supervisor for all teachers in the district working with children who have learning disabilities. Sam is a teacher working in this area and would report directly to Susan. This would be a clear violation of the policy. Sam is told there is no other position available so he will have to resign. Both Sam and Susan do not contest that the policy as written applies to them and that Sam will have to resign because he can't find another position.
 

SAM AND SUSAN DECIDE THAT THE ANTI-NEPOTISM RULE VIOLATES THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. PLEASE PRESENT THEIR ARGUMENTS AND THE ARGUMENT THAT WILL BE ADVANCED BY THE DISTRICT AGAINST SAM'S AND SUSAN'S POSITION.