Fisher v. Snyder, 72-1599.

• Decision Date: 16 April 1973
• Docket Number: No. 72-1599.,72-1599.
• Citation: 476 F.2d 375
• Parties: Frances FISHER, Appellee, v. James SNYDER et al., Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

476 F.2d 375 (1973)

Frances FISHER, Appellee, v. James SNYDER et al., Appellants.

No. 72-1599.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted February 15, 1973.

Decided April 16, 1973.

Charles W. Baskins, North Platte, Neb., and William P. Mueller, Ogallala, Neb., for appellants.

Theodore L. Kessner, Lincoln, Neb., for appellee.

Before LAY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and NICHOL, District Judge.^*

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

Appellants, as members of the school board of a rural Nebraska county district, dismissed appellee, Frances Fisher, as a high school teacher at the close of the 1972 school year, giving as a reason her "unbecoming conduct" outside the classroom. Mrs. Fisher thereafter brought an action against the members of the board under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that constitutionally impermissible reasons underlay their dismissal action. The district court ordered her reinstatement,¹ and the board members bring this appeal. We affirm the district court.

The relevant facts are not in dispute. Mrs. Fisher, a middle-aged² divorcee, was employed at the high school in Tryon, Nebraska,³ from 1970 to 1972. Her married son, then 26 years old, lived and taught in the neighboring town of Stapleton, Nebraska. Mrs. Fisher lived alone in a one-bedroom apartment. On several occasions, young ladies, married couples, and young men, who were friends of her son, visited Tryon. Because hotel and motel accommodations were generally sparse and unavailable in Tryon, Mrs. Fisher followed the advice of the secretary of the school board and allowed these guests to stay overnight at her apartment. Cliff Rowan, age 26, was a particularly frequent visitor. Rowan's parents lived in California. He, therefore, regularly visited Mrs. Fisher during his school vacations and at other times, and she referred to him as her second son. In the spring of 1972, Rowan spent about a week in Tryon visiting school classes as a means of fulfilling certain of his college requirements. Mrs. Fisher made arrangements with school administrators for this visitation and it was reported in the local newspaper.

Following Rowan's visit, the school board notified Mrs. Fisher that her contract would not be renewed at the end of the 1972 school year. At her request, pursuant to provisions of Nebraska law, the board afforded Mrs. Fisher a hearing relating to the notice of dismissal. Following this hearing, the board made findings justifying the dismissal which, as here pertinent, read:

(a) Frances A. Fish sic is a single woman.

(b) That on several occasions during the current school year men, not related to Frances A. Fisher, stayed in her apartment in Tryon, McPherson County, Nebraska, on several occasions ranging from one night to a period of at least one week, this constitutes conduct unbecoming a teacher.

The district court held the dismissal impermissible as arbitrary and capricious in violation of Mrs. Fisher's right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. As a further basis for its decision, the court determined that the board, in dismissing Mrs. Fisher, invaded her constitutionally protected rights of association and privacy. Affirming on the substantive due process ground, we do not reach the issues of association or privacy.

Nebraska by statute requires that notice and a hearing be given nontenured teachers who are to be terminated. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 79-1254.⁴ The appellees concede that the school board, in dismissing Fisher, complied with the statute, and its judgment, therefore, must be afforded judicial deference "so long as the board does not act unreasonably, arbitrarily, capriciously, or unlawfully." Smith v. Board of Educ., 365 F. 2d 770, 782 (8th Cir. 1966); see Bradford v. School Dist. No. 20, 364 F.2d 185, 189 (4th Cir. 1966); Johnson v. Branch, 364 F.2d 177, 180-181 (4th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1003, 87 S. Ct. 706, 17 L.Ed.2d 542 (1967); Brooks v. School Dist., 267 F.2d 733, 739 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 894, 80 S.Ct. 196, 4 L.Ed.2d 151 (1959).

However, a high school teacher may successfully argue that his dismissal was arbitrary and capricious if he can prove:

* * * that each of the stated reasons underlying his dismissal is trivial, or is unrelated to the educational process or to working relationships within the educational institution, or is wholly unsupported by a basis in fact. McEnteggart v. Cataldo, 451 F.2d 1109, 1111 (1st Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 943, 92 S.Ct. 2878, 33 L.Ed.2d 767 (1972).

Drown v. Portsmouth School District, 451 F.2d 1106, 1108 (1st Cir. 1971); see Cook County College Teachers Union, Local 1600, AFT v. Byrd, 456 F.2d 882, 889 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 848, 93 S.Ct. 56, 34 L.Ed.2d 90 (1972); Freeman v. Gould Special School Dist., 405 F.2d 1153, 1167 n.9 (Lay, J., dissenting); Johnson, supra, 364 F.2d at 181-182; cf. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 239, 77 S.Ct. 752, 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957).

Thus, while a school board may legitimately inquire into the character and integrity of its teachers, see Beilan v. Board of Public Educ., 357 U.S. 399, 405, 78 S.Ct. 1317, 2 L.Ed.2d 1414 (1958); Adler v. Board of Educ., 342 U.S. 485, 493, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517 (1952); Jenkyns v. Board of Educ., 111 U.S.App.D.C. 64, 294 F.2d 260, 261 (1961); James v. West Virginia Bd. of Regents, 322 F.Supp. 217, 228-230 (S. D.W.Va.1971), it must be certain that it does not arbitrarily or capriciously dismiss a teacher based on unsupported conclusions drawn from such inquiries.

In seeking to justify the dismissal in this case, the school board argues that the evidence developed at the board hearing supported its finding Mrs. Fisher guilty of conduct unbecoming a teacher. In the board's view, "the inferences from her social behavior are that there was a strong potential of sexual misconduct." The board does not actually accuse Mrs. Fisher of immoral conduct but "of social misbehavior that is not conducive to the maintenance of the integrity of the public school system." Appellants' Brief at 12, 13.

But here, there is no proof of improper conduct. The only whit of evidence offered as support for the board's conclusion that Mrs. Fisher was guilty of unbecoming conduct was the fact that she had overnight guests. But the presence of these guests in her home provides no inkling beyond subtle implication and innuendo which would impugn Mrs. Fisher's morality.⁵ Idle speculation certainly does not provide a basis in fact for the board's conclusory inference that "there was strong...