It's probably not wise to try to guess what the jury will find in any case. Absent special insight into the minds of the jurors, it's a risky venture where the chances of being wrong are large.
Plus, as Judge Ishmael has said, this is an unusual case with an unusual set of facts, and those facts are not crystal clear.
What did the jury hear? Did Peggy resign - as it so clearly says on the paper she wrote - or was she coerced into retirement? What story line will they construct in their collective minds? There are three remaining charges and Petrilli only needs to prevail on one of them to "win." Is this case a slam dunk for the district? How will the jury find?
Here are some random thoughts:
Saying that race is NOT a major factor at Booker T Washington Academy is kinda like saying there's no speeding in Indianapolis.
The Academy at Lexington, one of two schools that were joined to create BTWA, was supposed to be a Marva Collins clone; a distinctly African American effort, and one that Collins was quick to distance herself from when she felt FCPS did not deliver the program as promised.
The long history of distrust of the Fayette County Schools in the west end is the very dragon Superintendent Stu Silberman went in to slay. To prove once and for all that the schools could deliver a high quality education to families in generational poverty, despite past failings, he sent his most noble knight and threw the considerable power of his office behnd her. But this is a tough old dragon and evidence suggests the knight erred by ignoring sound advice and trying to go it alone.
I have to think that "race" and "Booker T" will be inextricably linked in the minds of jurors who've been around Lexington for a while. Despite the facts in the case - this could be a problem for the school district.
The district's narrative
The district has been able to put into evidence a long list of failings attributed to Peggy Petrilli. They have shown with great effect that Petrilli's management and relationship problems may well have given parents a reason to distrust her administration of the school on grounds that have nothing to do with her race or old resentments related to her hiring.
But that's not all this narrative has done. Jurors have heard the story of a school principal who got special treatment and the chances that some jurors may resent that fact seems high.
In action after action, the district portrayed Petrilli as the principal who couldn't shoot straight. She muffed hiring practices, went back on agreements, ignored IEPs, and made changes with a level of intuitive caprice that damaged relationships and cut her off from those she would otherwise be leading.
The district claims they "supported" Peggy time after time - and much more than any other principal. When she ignored policy or bent the law district directors thought, "This is just one more thing Peggy has gotten us into."
But it seems clear that what the district really did was enable Petrilli without using the evaluation system as it was intended; to motivate her to improve her performance in areas where she was relatively weak.
I have to believe that there will be jurors sitting in conference today who resent those facts.
Somebody's going to think, "That's not how it works on my job. When I mess up, it shows up on my evaluation. Why does she get to get away with all of this stuff without so much as a letter in her file?" I think some jurors are likely to resent it. And those jurors will want somebody to pay.