the parties ... had an adequate opportunity to litigate.” University of Tennessee v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 799, 106 S.Ct. 3220, 3226, 92 L.Ed.2d 635 (1986) (quotations & citations omitted); see also Gjellum v. City of Birmingham, 829 F.2d 1056, 1070 (11th Cir.1987). In this case, the Board could not have been “acting in a judicial capacity” because it was acting as Brady’s employer when it discharged Brady. See Fla.Stat. § 240.319(3)(i )1 (providing that “board of trustees shall provide for the ... removal of personnel”) (emphasis added); Fla.Admin.Code Rule 6A-14.0411(6) (providing that employee under continuing contract “may be ... dismissed by the board upon recommendation of the president”) (emphasis added); Burney v. Polk Community College, 728 F.2d 1374, 1376 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>); see also Perkins v. School Bd. of Pinellas
recognizing relationship between malice and reprehensibility holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school holding that the csu board of trustees and individual trustees sued in their official capacity are a political arm of the state and as such are immune from suit recognizing employeremployee relationship between board of trustees and tenured guidance counselor recognizing employeremployee relationship between county school board and teacher