Brown v. James, 4674.
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GEATHERS, J |
| Citation | 389 S.C. 41,697 S.E.2d 604 |
| Parties | Sharon BROWN, Appellant,v.William B. JAMES, Superintendent for Cherokee County School District, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 4674.,4674. |
| Decision Date | 12 April 2010 |
389 S.C. 41
697 S.E.2d 604
Sharon BROWN, Appellant,
v.
William B. JAMES, Superintendent for Cherokee County School District, Respondent.
No. 4674.
Court of Appeals of South Carolina.
Heard Oct. 13, 2009.
Decided April 12, 2010.
Withdrawn, Substituted and Refiled July 21, 2010.
Rehearing Denied July 21, 2010.
M. Jane Turner, David Duff and Kiosha A. Hammond, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
Sharon Brown (Brown) appeals the circuit court's decision granting District Superintendent William B. James' (James) motion for summary judgment in the matter she brought against him alleging a violation of her rights under the South Carolina Teacher Employment and Dismissal Act (Employment and Dismissal Act).1 Brown asserts that (1) the circuit court abused its discretion when concluding she had not exhausted her administrative remedies; (2) the circuit court misinterpreted the Employment and Dismissal Act; (3) she had a legal right to appeal directly to the circuit court because the Board of Trustees (Board) had already reached a final decision regarding the nonrenewal of her contract; and (4) the circuit court abused its discretion when concluding that her motion to amend her complaint to add parties was moot. We reverse and remand.
Brown was a teacher, assigned to Limestone Central Elementary School (Limestone) in Cherokee County, South Carolina, for the 2006-2007 school year. Brown had been a teacher at Limestone for eight years before she filed this action. On April 10, 2007, Brown was called to the Cherokee County School District (District) office to meet with Mr. William A. Jones (Jones), Chief Administrative Officer/Director of Personnel for the District. Jones and Brown discussed an “improvement letter” Brown had received from Limestone's Principal, Sharon Jefferies (Jefferies), and the fact that Brown had filed a sexual harassment complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Jefferies.2 Brown informed Jones that she had planned to file the sexual harassment complaint even before she received the improvement letter.3 Jones told Brown she could either go back to work or take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act due to the “hostile/threatening” work environment. Brown chose to take the leave because Jones told her she would be paid until the end of her contract year, which was July 2007. Jones then informed Brown that he was going to recommend that her teaching contract not be renewed and advised her to resign.
Subsequently, Brown received a letter dated April 12, 2007, from James, stating that at Jefferies' recommendation, her contract for the upcoming year would not be renewed. Brown retained attorney Theo W. Mitchell (Attorney Mitchell), and within fifteen days of the April 12, 2007 notice, she submitted a written request for an opportunity to be heard under the Employment and Dismissal Act. The Board received Brown's request on April 27, 2007. However, on April 24, 2007, the Board took up James' April 12th “notice of intent not to renew” letter and voted to terminate Brown's contract that same day. The Board did not inform Brown of its decision.
Even though the Board had already made its final determination regarding Brown's contract, the Board asked Attorney Mitchell if Brown would waive the fifteen-day requirement for scheduling the hearing to give it an opportunity to discuss the matter. Brown agreed to the waiver. The Board then notified Attorney Mitchell that it wanted to depose Brown before the hearing.
Subsequently, Attorney Mitchell informed the Board that Brown would not be available for a deposition prior to a hearing. Thereafter,
Brown filed her initial complaint in circuit court because she believed her due process rights were violated under the Employment and Dismissal Act in that her contract was not renewed and she was never afforded an opportunity to be heard. Specifically, in her complaint against James, Brown alleged breach of contract, fraud, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, negligence and/or negligent misrepresentation, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In the case before us, Brown asserts the Board made a final decision regarding her employment before she was afforded an opportunity to be heard as required by the Employment and Dismissal Act. Brown also asserts that she could not comply with the Employment and Dismissal Act's thirty-day appeal process regarding the Board's final determination as she did not have knowledge of the Board's final determination until eleven months after the decision.4 James did not file a formal answer that addressed any of the issues Brown raised in her complaint. Instead, on January 18, 2008, fifty days after the complaint was filed and served, James filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, or in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, SCRCP.
On February 13, 2008, Brown filed a motion to add the Board as a defendant. On March 7, 2008, James renewed his motion, stating only that Brown had not exhausted her administrative remedies. During February and March 2008, Brown filed a request for production of documents and requests to admit. During March and April, James answered the requests. After Brown received the responses to the request for production, she sought to amend her complaint to add the Board's attorneys as defendants predicated on their knowledge of and involvement in what she perceived to be a fraudulent act.
On April 28, 2008, the circuit court heard Brown's motion to amend and James' motion to dismiss. On May 5, 2008, the circuit court issued an order granting James' motion to dismiss,5 concluding that Brown had not exhausted her administrative remedies. The court also concluded that based on the dismissal, Brown's motion to amend was rendered moot. On May 12, 2008, Brown filed a motion for reconsideration, which included a request that if the court upheld the dismissal, that it be without prejudice. On June 20, 2008, the circuit court issued an order denying Brown's motion. This appeal followed.
The issue presented in this case is whether the circuit court erred in granting James' motion for summary judgment because it concluded that Brown failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
When reviewing the grant of a summary judgment motion, an appellate court applies the same standard of review as the circuit court under Rule 56, SCRCP. Wogan v. Kunze, 379 S.C. 581, 585, 666 S.E.2d 901, 903 (2008). The circuit court should grant summary judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(c), SCRCP; Russell v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 353 S.C. 208, 217, 578 S.E.2d 329, 334 (2003); Knox v. Greenville Hosp. Sys., 362 S.C. 566, 569-70, 608 S.E.2d 459, 461 (Ct.App.2005); B & B Liquors, Inc. v. O'Neil, 361 S.C. 267, 270, 603 S.E.2d 629, 631 (Ct.App.2004).
Brown argues the circuit court erred in concluding that her claims were not properly before it due to her failure to exhaust her exclusive statutory remedy under the Employment and Dismissal Act. We agree.
Initially, we address the applicability of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies to local school boards. Whether under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA),6 general administrative law standards, or the fundamental principles of administrative law, Brown was required to exhaust her administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. Moreover, the Board was also subject to the limitations and exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that where a remedy before an administrative agency is provided, relief must be sought by exhausting this remedy before the courts will act. This doctrine is well established, is a cardinal principle of practically universal application, and must be borne in mind by the courts in construing a statute providing for review of administrative action.
2 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 595 (1962) (citing Bustos-Ovalle v. Landon, 225 F.2d 878 (9th Cir.1955) James v. Consol. Steel Corp., 195 S.W.2d 955 (Tex.Civ.App.1946); Bowen v. Dep't of Soc. Sec., 14 Wash.2d 148, 127 P.2d 682 (1942)) (footnotes omitted); 7 see also 2 Kenneth Culp Davis & Richard
J. Pierce, Jr., Administrative Law Treatise § 15 (3rd ed. 1994) (quoting Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 50-51, 58 S.Ct. 459, 82 L.Ed. 638 (1938)) (“[It is] the long-settled rule of judicial administration that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.”).
Under the APA, section 1-23-380 specifically states, “A party who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Storm M.H. v. Charleston Cnty. Bd. of Trs., 27201.
...remedies exists when a party demonstrates that pursuit of administrative remedies would be a vain or futile act.” Brown v. James, 389 S.C. 41, 54, 697 S.E.2d 604, 611 (Ct.App.2010). Notwithstanding the alleged procedural problems, we have chosen to address the merits of the parties' appeals......
-
Allen Patterson, Steve Tilton, Richard Sendler, Lincoln Privette, Marc Ellis, Joey Carter, Barry Davis, Michael Nieri, Allen Patterson Residential LLC v. Witter, Appellate Case No. 2016-002343
...as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56." Rule 12(b), SCRCP ; see also, e.g ., 425 S.C. 226 Brown v. James , 389 S.C. 41, 47 n.5, 697 S.E.2d 604, 607 n.5 (Ct. App. 2010) (citations omitted) (finding that the trial court's consideration of matters beyond the pleadi......
-
In re Moses, Appellate Case No. 2015–001255.
...537 (2004), Respondent argues the Panel should have considered the lack of client harm in its analysis. See Boyd, 388 S.C. at 517–18, 697 S.E.2d at 604 (“While recognizing the seriousness of this misconduct, the Court is aware that respondent did not place any client funds at risk....”); St......
-
Chapman v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., Appellate Case No. 2015-001548
...to appeal within fourteen days). We recognize a party must exhaust administrative remedies before the courts will act. Brown v. James , 389 S.C. 41, 48, 697 S.E.2d 604, 608 (Ct. App. 2010). We are also cognizant of the rule stating "[t]he construction of a statute by the agency charged with......
-
Storm M.H. v. Charleston Cnty. Bd. of Trs., 27201.
...remedies exists when a party demonstrates that pursuit of administrative remedies would be a vain or futile act.” Brown v. James, 389 S.C. 41, 54, 697 S.E.2d 604, 611 (Ct.App.2010). Notwithstanding the alleged procedural problems, we have chosen to address the merits of the parties' appeals......
-
Allen Patterson, Steve Tilton, Richard Sendler, Lincoln Privette, Marc Ellis, Joey Carter, Barry Davis, Michael Nieri, Allen Patterson Residential LLC v. Witter, Appellate Case No. 2016-002343
...as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56." Rule 12(b), SCRCP ; see also, e.g ., 425 S.C. 226 Brown v. James , 389 S.C. 41, 47 n.5, 697 S.E.2d 604, 607 n.5 (Ct. App. 2010) (citations omitted) (finding that the trial court's consideration of matters beyond the pleadi......
-
In re Moses, Appellate Case No. 2015–001255.
...537 (2004), Respondent argues the Panel should have considered the lack of client harm in its analysis. See Boyd, 388 S.C. at 517–18, 697 S.E.2d at 604 (“While recognizing the seriousness of this misconduct, the Court is aware that respondent did not place any client funds at risk....”); St......
-
Chapman v. S.C. Dep't of Soc. Servs., Appellate Case No. 2015-001548
...to appeal within fourteen days). We recognize a party must exhaust administrative remedies before the courts will act. Brown v. James , 389 S.C. 41, 48, 697 S.E.2d 604, 608 (Ct. App. 2010). We are also cognizant of the rule stating "[t]he construction of a statute by the agency charged with......