Flath v. Garrison Public School Dist. No. 51, 95-1756
| Decision Date | 26 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-1756,95-1756 |
| Citation | 82 F.3d 244 |
| Parties | 108 Ed. Law Rep. 1113 Karen FLATH, Appellant, v. GARRISON PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 51; Dennis Carter, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota; Patrick A. Conmy, U.S.D.C., Judge, Karen Klein, U.S.D.C., Judge.
Michael Geiermann, Bismarck, ND, argued, for appellant.
David E. Reich, Bismarck, ND, argued, for appellees.
Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Karen Flath appeals from the district court's 1 grant of summary judgment in favor of the Garrison Public School District and its elementary principal, Dennis Carter, in Flath's lawsuit alleging a violation of her constitutional and statutory rights. We affirm.
Flath was employed by the Garrison Public School District as a Chapter One teacher from 1983 through 1992, when her contract was not renewed. In 1989, Dennis Carter became the elementary principal at Garrison Public School. As elementary principal, Carter supervised and evaluated Flath's teaching abilities. During the spring of 1990, a parent complained to Carter that Flath had inappropriately disciplined her child. Carter met with Flath about this incident but did not issue a formal reprimand.
During the next two years, the working relationship between Flath and Carter began to deteriorate. In the fall of 1990, Flath criticized Carter's administrative techniques in a school improvement survey. In April 1991, Carter issued a formal reprimand against Flath for her responses, viewing her remarks as a personal attack. Carter also reprimanded her in May 1991 for speaking out against him at a Garrison Education Association (GEA) meeting, claiming that she was causing dissension among the staff. In July 1991, Flath filed grievances challenging the April and May reprimands. The Garrison School Board (Board) eventually resolved these matters in her favor and the formal reprimands were removed from her permanent file.
During the 1991-92 school year, Carter and Flath had numerous confrontations. In October 1991, Carter evaluated Flath and gave her unsatisfactory marks for discipline in the classroom. Later that month, Carter received a complaint that Flath had struck a student on the chin. Flath admitted that she had struck the child lightly. As a result, Carter devised an action plan for Flath which prohibited her from using inappropriate physical contact on students to control behavior.
In February 1992, Carter received three additional complaints from parents who claimed that Flath had used inappropriate techniques such as pulling hair, twisting ears, and bending back fingers to discipline students. Carter investigated these incidents and met with Flath to discuss them. On Flath's next evaluation, Carter gave her unsatisfactory marks for her disciplinary techniques.
As a result of the disciplinary problems, Carter in March 1992 recommended that the Board not renew Flath's contract. The Board voted to contemplate nonrenewal of Flath's contract and sent her notice of the nonrenewal hearing. In April 1992, the Board held a hearing and voted not to renew Flath's contract, citing her "lack of ability to appropriately discipline students" as the reason for nonrenewal.
We review the district court's granting of summary judgment de novo. Mumford v. Godfried, 52 F.3d 756, 759 (8th Cir.1995). Thus, we will affirm the lower court's decision if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Plumbers Union v. City of Omaha, 946 F.2d 599, 600 (8th Cir.1991) (citations omitted). "Where the unresolved issues are primarily legal rather than factual, summary judgment is particularly appropriate." Mumford, 52 F.3d at 759 (citing Crain v. Board of Police Comm'rs, 920 F.2d 1402, 1405-06 (8th Cir.1990)).
Flath first alleges that her due process rights were violated when she was terminated from her teaching position. She bases her claim on the Board's failure to produce any witnesses to substantiate the reasons for nonrenewal, thus denying her the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses testifying against her. She also claims that Carter violated her due process rights because he relied solely on hearsay evidence in recommending nonrenewal of her contract.
Section 15-47-38(5) of the North Dakota Century Code sets forth the procedure that must be followed to nonrenew a teacher's contract in North Dakota. First, the reasons given by a school board for nonrenewal "must be sufficient to justify the contemplated action ... and may not be frivolous or arbitrary but must be related to the ability competence, or qualifications of the teacher...." N.D. Cent.Code § 15-47-38(5) (1993). The statute provides that Id.
We find Flath's contentions unpersuasive. Section 15-47-38(5) does not require a school board to produce witnesses. Nor does subsection (5) require the Board to sustain its reasons for nonrenewal. See Lithun v. Grand Forks Pub. Sch., 307 N.W.2d 545, 553 n. 6 (N.D.1981) ().
Subsection (5) specifically states that the reasons for nonrenewal may be established by oral or written evidence. The evidence presented at the hearing included Flath's unsatisfactory teacher evaluations, complaints from parents criticizing Flath's discipline techniques, and documentation of the action taken by the administration as a result of the complaints. In addition, Flath admitted that she had struck one of the students. We find this evidence sufficient to support the nonrenewal of Flath's contract.
Whether or not section 15-47-35(5) required the Board and Carter to produce witnesses to substantiate the charges against her, Flath was provided all the process due her under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Schuler v. Univ. of Minnesota, 788 F.2d 510, 515 (8th Cir.1986) (), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1056, 107 S.Ct. 932, 93 L.Ed.2d 983 (1987). To satisfy pretermination due process, a public employee is entitled to notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence, and an opportunity to be heard. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 1495, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985). Generally, something less than a formal adversarial hearing is required. Demming v. Housing & Redevelopment Auth., 66 F.3d 950, 953 (8th Cir.19...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Hamilton County Public Hosp.
...(2) an explanation of the employer's evidence; and (3) an opportunity to present their side of the story. Flath v. Garrison Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 51, 82 F.3d 244, 247 (8th Cir.1996) (citing Loudermill); Post v. Harper, 980 F.2d 491, 494 (8th Cir.1992) (same); Peery v. Brakke, 826 F.2d 740, 74......
-
John Doe v. Univ. of Neb.
...any claim that the grievance procedure did not afford her the process she was due."46 Id. at 712 ; see Flath v. Garrison Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 51 , 82 F.3d 244, 247 (8th Cir. 1996) (affirming summary judgment in favor of school district where teacher claimed her due process rights were violat......
-
Rubin v. Ikenberry
...university's procedures, even though the university failed to comply in full with its own procedures) and Flath v. Garrison Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 51, 82 F.3d 244, 246 (8th Cir.1996). The Court in Loudermill specified that its inquiry was what procedures must be followed before termination of ......
-
Case v. Shelby County Civil Serv. Merit Bd.
...insufficient where employee was not given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against him). But see Flath v. Garrison Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 51, 82 F.3d 244, 247 (8th Cir.1996); City of North Pole v. Zabek, 934 P.2d 1292, 1298 (Alaska 1997) (holding post-termination procedures not inadequat......