Yarbrough v. Camphor

Decision Date15 September 1994
Docket NumberNo. 91-CA-00300,91-CA-00300
Citation645 So.2d 867
Parties95 Ed. Law Rep. 1152 Roosevelt YARBROUGH, as President of the Board of Trustees of the Claiborne County, Mississippi, School District, Arnette Nash, Robert Tinsley, L.A. Buck and Wilbert Archer, as Members of the Board of Trustees of the Claiborne County Public School District, John C. Noble, as Superintendent of Education of the Claiborne County Public School District and the Claiborne County Public School District v. Zhukov R. CAMPHOR.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Everett T. Sanders, Natchez, for appellant.

Joseph E. Roberts, Jr., Crymes G. Pittman, Pittman, Germany, Roberts & Welsh, Jackson, for appellee.

EN BANC.

McRAE, Justice for the Court:

This appeal arises from the February 26, 1991, Claiborne County Chancery Court judgment which awarded Zhukov R. Camphor twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for being wrongfully discharged from his employment as Finance Director of the Claiborne County Public School District. The Board of Trustees for Claiborne County, Superintendent of Education of the Claiborne County Public School District, and the Claiborne County Public School District (hereinafter "Yarbrough") appeal and assign as error the following:

I. The chancery court was manifestly wrong in its findings of fact and conclusions of law.

II. The chancery court misapplied the law to the facts of this case.

Finding no error on appeal, we affirm the lower court's judgment.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

The minutes of the April 14, 1987 meeting of the Claiborne County Board of Education reveal that Zhukov Camphor was employed as a "Finance Director on a six (6) month probationary period with a salary of $25,000.00 a year" pursuant to the recommendation of John C. Noble, Superintendent of the Claiborne County Public School District. Shortly thereafter, on April 30, 1987, Noble informed Camphor through written communication that, due to his insubordination, he was suspended without pay effectively immediately. Noble informed Camphor that he could appeal the suspension in writing within five days. On May 1, 1987, Camphor submitted in writing a request for a hearing before the Board of Education. On May 18, 1987, Noble communicated to Camphor that he was terminated from employment with the School District.

On May 20, 1987, the Claiborne County Board of Education reinstated Camphor as Finance Director without a hearing. On May 21, 1987, Noble again informed Camphor through a third letter that his employment with the School District was terminated and that he should remove his personal belongings from his office. Camphor alleged that on May 26, 1987 and July 31, 1987, he requested in writing a hearing before the Claiborne County School Board of Education. Although the May 26, 1987 letter did not appear in the record before us, the July 31, 1987 letter did. It addressed the fact that he was experiencing difficulty and resistance from Noble upon returning to work on May 21, 1987, after the Board's reinstatement decision.

This saga continued when Camphor filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Claiborne County on June 7, 1987 against Noble as Superintendent of the Claiborne County Public School District praying that the court issue a mandatory injunction restraining Noble from hindering the performance of his duties as Finance Director. Camphor claimed that, as a result of Noble's actions, he had been denied due process of law since this termination was arbitrary, without cause and no hearing was provided. Camphor later amended his complaint and added the Board of Trustees of the Claiborne County Public Schools and the Claiborne County Public School District as defendants.

On September 17, 1987, Camphor filed a motion for a temporary restraining order preliminary injunction and permanent injunction setting forth the same allegations. Camphor's motion also revealed that Noble had executed a criminal affidavit and complaint against him upon which a warrant for his arrest was issued by the Justice Court of Claiborne County, and, as a result, on July 25, 1987, he was convicted in justice court for disturbing the peace. The Chancery Court of Claiborne County granted a temporary restraining order but later denied the preliminary and permanent injunction request.

On October 22, 1987, School Board members filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Camphor was merely employed as a probationary employee for six months. They agreed that he was reinstated pursuant to the suspension imposed by Noble. However, the members argued that Camphor did not request a hearing nor receive one pursuant to his May 21, 1987 termination notice. Defendants claimed that Camphor had not exhausted his administrative remedies or afforded them an opportunity to review his situation by way of a hearing.

On December 8, 1987, the chancery court ordered that the School Board provide Camphor a hearing. On January 6, 1988, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer, Deborah A. McDonald, Attorney-at-Law. Ms. McDonald concluded that Camphor was a probationary employee and, therefore, could be terminated at will. It was not until July 6, 1988, that the Claiborne County Board of Education acted on the hearing officer's findings and, for the first time, terminated Camphor.

On February 5, 1991, the Claiborne Chancery Court found, inter alia, that Camphor was hired as Finance Director at the salary of $25,000.00 per year. The court found that the suspension and termination of Camphor by Noble was without authority of law. The chancery court also ordered that the Claiborne County School Board set aside Camphor's suspension and termination. The court further found that Camphor had been precluded from acting as Finance Director by the defendants and that Camphor never received his deserved salary, although he remained willing to resume the duties and obligations of his employment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a trial judge sits without a jury, this Court will not disturb his factual determinations where there is substantial evidence in the record to support those findings. Omnibank of Mantee v. United Southern Bank, 607 So.2d 76, 82 (Miss.1992). "Put another way, this Court ought and generally will affirm a trial court sitting without a jury on a question of fact unless, based upon substantial evidence, the court must be manifestly wrong." Tricon Metal v. Topp, 516 So.2d 236, 238 (Miss.1987); Brown v. Williams, 504 So.2d 1188, 1192 (Miss.1987). This Court must examine the entire record and accept:

that evidence which supports or reasonably tends to support the findings of fact made below, together with all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom and which favor the lower court's findings of fact, must be accepted.

Cotton v. McConnell, 435 So.2d 683, 685 (Miss.1983). Finally, when the trial judge sits as the finder of fact, he has the sole authority for determining the credibility of witnesses. Bryan v. Holzer, 589 So.2d 648 (Miss.1991); Bell v. Parker, 563 So.2d 594 (Miss.1990).

Issues of law presented on appeal, however, are afforded de novo review by this Court. Omnibank of Mantee, 607 So.2d at 83; Watts v. Pennington, 598 So.2d 1308, 1311 (Miss.1992); UHS-Qualicare v. Gulf Coast Community Hospital, 525 So.2d 746, 754 (Miss.1987).

DISCUSSION OF LAW

A. FINDINGS OF FACT

Yarbrough contends that the trial court erred in several of its factual findings. First, Yarbrough maintains that there is no evidence in the record to support the finding that Camphor entered into an employment contract with the School District. However, we do not require all employment contracts to be in writing and have so stated that, "[o]ral employment contracts for a definite term of less than fifteen months are wholly enforceable at law." Short v. Columbus Rubber and Gasket Company, Inc., 535 So.2d 61, 64 (Miss.1988). See Eastline Corp. v. Marion Apartment, Ltd., 524 So.2d 582, 584 (Miss.1988); St. Louis Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. Lewis, 230 So.2d 580, 582 (Miss.1970); Miss.Code Ann.Sec. 15-3-1(d) (1972). In Putt v. City of Corinth, 579 So.2d 534 (Miss.1991), we held that the statute of frauds is satisfied as to the existence of a contract "so long as there is some memorandum or note thereof." Putt, 579 So.2d at 538. Clearly, the April 14, 1987 minutes of the Board which employed Camphor as Finance Director for $25,000.00 per year satisfy this requirement.

Yarbrough argues that Camphor was merely a probationary employee for a six-month period as indicated in the minutes of the Board, and, likewise, Camphor admits that he was employed on a six month probationary period. There is no dispute that Camphor was hired as a probationary employee and, thus, could be terminated if his suitability for remaining employed was in question. The chancellor, however, never directly held that Camphor was not a probationary employee; he only found that he was employed at a salary of $25,000.00 per year. As this opinion reveals, the question of whether he was a probationary employee is of no relevance to the outcome of the case.

Thirdly, Yarbrough contends that the court was in error in finding that Noble did not have the authority to terminate Camphor from his employment. Camphor was recommended by Noble and employed pursuant to such recommendation. Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 37-9-3 (1972) states:

Within the limits of the available funds, the superintendent of schools or administrative superintendent of a school district shall recommend to the school board thereof all non-instructional employees to be employed and may prescribe the duties thereof. Compensation for such employees may be paid from any lawful funds.

The superintendent of a school district also may suspend or dismiss any certified employee for "incompetence, neglect of duty, immoral conduct, intemperance, ... or other good cause." Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 37-9-59 (1972). Camphor, on the other hand, was a non-instructional...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • Papagolos v. Lafayette Cnty. Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • November 13, 2013
    ... ... See Yarbrough v. Camphor, 645 So.2d 867, 870 (Miss.1994); Tutwiler v. Jones, 394 So.2d 1346, 1348 (Miss.1981). Thus, Plaintiff cannot establish that either ... ...
  • Miss. Power Co. v. Miss. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 11, 2015
    ...4, § 172A.34 Miss.Code Ann. § 7–9–19 (Rev.2014).35 Id.36 Harrison v. State, 800 So.2d 1134, 1137 (Miss.2001) (quoting Yarbrough v. Camphor, 645 So.2d 867, 872 (Miss.1994) ; McCrory v. State, 210 So.2d 877, 877–79 (Miss.1968) ; Lenoir v. Madison, 641 So.2d 1124, 1128 (Miss.1994) ).37 Mississ......
  • Papagolos v. Lafayette Cnty. Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • September 16, 2013
  • City of Jackson v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 28, 2022
    ...for assessing witness credibility. City of Jackson v. Brister , 838 So. 2d 274, 279 (Miss. 2003) (citing Yarbrough v. Camphor , 645 So. 2d 867, 869 (Miss. 1994) ). ¶53. Based on the actions of Goldman, we hold find that the trial court did not err by finding the City liable for Ruth Harrion......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT