Jay Marino Separation Agreement

The separation agreement also stipulates that neither party would report negatively or pejoratively to the other party. He will replace former Superintendent Jay Marino, who was placed on leave on November 1 for an unknown reason. In three weeks, the school board agreed to a mutual separation agreement, but gave no explanation as to what triggered Marino`s departure. Marino, in his sixth year as superintendent when he was placed on leave, received 3,827 $US until November 19 and received an additional $US 16,159 on December 13 for eight working days and 11 days of unused leave. The separation agreement also required the borough of Marino to pay family sickness and dental insurance premiums before June 30 or until its other job. The school board was expected to approve a «mutual separation agreement» with Marino on Tuesday night, which is in its sixth year of school. Erik Bentzel, former superintendent of the northern Lebanon School District in Pennsylvania. Recently, one candidate was superintendent of Volusia County. Bentzel resigned in 2018 from a strained relationship with its board.

He and the board of directors have reached an agreement not to criticize each other. But when he applied for a position in another Pennsylvania school district, he accused the board of incriminating him with do-do lists. Jay Marino, former superintendent, Antioch Elementary District 34, Antioch, Ill. Recently, he left the district under what has been described as a «mutual separation agreement.» Marino has been on leave since November 1 for an unexplained cause. The separation agreement would take effect immediately. The applicant`s argument regarding the alleged efficiency and productivity gains due to the sending of a position does not create a triple problem of the pretext, especially if the promotion is given to someone who is already working in the position. See O`Regan v. Arbitration Forums, Inc., 246 F.3d 975 (7 cir 2001).

As I have already said, this fact alone is not sufficient to deal with a summary judgment, because the Court is not «a kind of «super-staff department» that weighs on the prudence of the work decisions of companies responsible for discrimination on the basis of the employment relationship. O`Regan, 246 F.3d out of 984 (quote Wollenburg v. Comtech Mfg. Co., 201 F.3d 973, 976 (7th Cir. 2000)). Thus, «the difference must be sufficient if it proves that the person who was hired was less qualified than the complainant to show a pretext, but the difference must be considerable.» Sublett v. John Wiley – Sons, Inc., 463 F.3d 731, 738 (7. Cir.