Calhoun County Bd. of Ed. v. Hamblin, 49821
| Decision Date | 26 July 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 49821,49821 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | CALHOUN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. O. D. HAMBLIN. |
Charles W. Cook, Bruce, for appellant.
Ottis B. Crocker, Jr., Bruce, for appellee.
Before SMITH, P. J., LEE and BOWLING, JJ., and HOWARD R. PIGFORD, Commissioner.
HOWARD R. PIGFORD, Commissioner for the Court: 1
This is an appeal from a decree of the Chancery Court of Calhoun County, Mississippi, overruling the Calhoun County Board of Education's decision not to reemploy O. G. Hamblin, principal of the Bruce Attendance Center.
On February 20, 1976, the said Board voted not to reemploy Hamblin and that decision was appealed to the Chancery Court of Calhoun County under the provisions of the Public School Fair Dismissal Act of 1976, Mississippi Code (Supp.1976) Section 37-9-101 -113 (now the School Employment Procedures Law, Mississippi Code Annotated (Supp.1977) Section 37-9-101 -113). The Chancery Court entered a decree overruling the Board's action on the ground that the decision of the Board was not supported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. Appellee was ordered reemployed for the 1976-77 school term.
The issue presented on this appeal is: Does the Mississippi Public School Fair Dismissal Act of 1976 create a substantive right to reemployment by the appellee which requires the School Board to demonstrate good faith for failure to reemploy him?
The record reflects that on January 20, 1976, the Superintendent of Education of Calhoun County decided not to recommend appellee for reemployment and so notified him by letter on that date. Subsequently, at an informal meeting, the County School Board voted to reject the Superintendent's recommendation and voted to reemploy appellee. After that meeting an opinion was obtained from the Attorney General, and the Board determined that it could not vote for reemployment of appellee without affording him a formal hearing. The Superintendent again notified the appellee of the decision not to recommend his reemployment and cited reasons for same. Appellee then requested a hearing before the School Board under the provisions of the Mississippi Public School Fair Dismissal Act.
The hearing was duly held, appellee was present and represented by his own counsel, he was allowed to present witnesses on his own behalf and to cross-examine witnesses of the Board. The evidence for appellee indicated that he was competent and contradicted the reasons of the Superintendent for nonreemployment while evidence indicated that there were problems between appellee, his staff and the community, with regard to communication.
After a full hearing, the School Board voted not to reemploy the appellee for the reasons stated by the Superintendent in the letter to appellee. On appeal, the Chancellor stated: "The matter to be decided by the Court is whether or not this (lack of communication with staff and community) is supported by substantial evidence." The Court then went on to say that the testimony did not support the reasons stated by the Superintendent by substantial evidence and that the reasons were not valid grounds for the Board's refusal to reemploy appellee. It is clear that the lower court assumed that the Public School Fair Dismissal Act placed the burden upon the Superintendent and School Board at such a hearing to demonstrate good cause not to reemploy appellee.
It is to be noticed that the Public School Fair Dismissal Act of 1976 was repealed and replaced by the School Employment Procedures Law of 1977, Mississippi Code Annotated (Supp.1977) Section 37-9-101 -113. The Legislature, in the School Employment Procedures Law of 1977 clearly stated that these statutes are procedural only and expressly provide that the law is not "to establish a system of tenure or to require that all decisions of nonreemployment be based upon cause with respect to employment in the school district." The statutes controlling in this case prior to the School Employment Procedures Law of 1977 were silent as to the legislative intent. However, since the prior law provided for an appeal and a hearing before the School Board, and the furnishing of reasons by the Superintendent for non-reemployment, it was contended, and the lower court apparently was of the opinion, that the burden was on the School Board to show good cause before denying reemployment to appellee.
There is no contention on behalf of the parties that the statutory procedural requirements were not met in this case. It is settled law that under the legislative acts the procedural requirements of timely notice and hearing must be met in order to deny reemployment. McDonald v. East Jasper County School District, 351 So.2d 531 (Miss.1977); Jackson v. Board of Education of Oktibbeha County, 349 So.2d 550 (Miss.1977); Board of Trustees of Pass Christian Municipal Separate School District v. Acker, 326 So.2d 799 (Miss.1976).
The issue on this appeal does not involve procedural requirements, but involves the nature of substantive rights, if any, of the appellee. Prior to the promulgation of the Public School Fair Dismissal Act, it was clear that school employees had no tenure. By statute, the only way this appellee could be hired was by the recommendation of the Superintendent and confirmation of the School Board on an annual basis. Mississippi Code Annotated (Supp.1976) Section 37-9-15; Lott v. State ex rel Kelly, 239 Miss. 97, 121 So.2d 402 (1960); Jennings v. Meridian Municipal Separate School District, 337 F.Supp. 567 (S.D.Miss.1971), Aff'd. 453 F.2d 413 (5th Cir. 1971).
In McCormick v. Attala County Board of Education, 407 F.Supp. 586 (N.D.Miss.1976), which involved failure to reemploy a teacher, the Federal District Judge correctly interpreted Mississippi laws, stating:
In Mississippi, the state law does not provide for a system of job tenure for public school teachers. . . . The defendant (Board of Education) had the lawful right to rehire the plaintiff for any reason, or for no reason at all, upon expiration of the contract, so long as her constitutional rights were not violated. . . . 407 F.Supp. at 594.
(Emphasis added).
Subsequent to the passage of the Act, in a case involving procedural aspects of the Act, this Court held that on appeal the chancery court was limited to determining if an order of the Board (1) was supported by substantial evidence, (2) was arbitrary or capricious, (3) was beyond the power of the administrative agency to make, or (4) violated some state of constitutional right of the complaining party. Board of Trustees of Pass Christian Municipal Separate School District v. Acker, 326 So.2d 799 (Miss.1976)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gates v. Walker
...of the protected conduct." (Citing Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education, supra). See also Calhoun County Board of Education v. Hamblin, 360 So.2d 1236 (Miss.1978) supra. * * * * * The decision not to reemploy Gates was made not because of her activities, but rather for her di......
-
Laurel Sch. Dist. v. Lanier
...Law of 1977, which was amended to the current title of "Education Employment Procedures Law of 2001." Calhoun Cnty. Bd. of Ed. v. Hamblin , 360 So. 2d 1236, 1238 (Miss. 1978) ; 2001 Miss. Laws ch. 459, § 1 (H.B. ...
-
Mississippi Employment Sec. Com'n v. Philadelphia Mun. Separate School Dist. of Neshoba County
...to demonstrate good cause for its decision that a particular school teacher will not be reemployed. Calhoun County Board of Education v. Hamblin, 360 So.2d 1236, 1239-1240 (Miss.1978). On the other hand, good cause amounting to willful misconduct is required before an employee may be disqua......
-
Harris v. Canton Separate Public School Bd. of Educ., s. 90-CC-01288-SC
...the employee must, to prevail, prove that such reason is without factual basis as the Court explained in Calhoun County Board of Education v. Hamblin, 360 So.2d 1236, 1240 (Miss.1978), in which it reinstated a school board's decision not to renew a It is because Harris did not meet his burd......