Fox v. Board of Ed. of Doddridge County, 13920

• Decision Date: 15 July 1977
• Docket Number: No. 13920,13920
• Citation: 160 W.Va. 668,236 S.E.2d 243
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: James J. FOX v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DODDRIDGE COUNTY et al.

Page 243

236 S.E.2d 243

160 W.Va. 668

James J. FOX v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF DODDRIDGE COUNTY et al.

No. 13920.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

July 15, 1977.

Syllabus by the Court

"The authority of a county board of education to dismiss a teacher under W.Va.Code 1931, 18A-2-8, as amended, must be based upon the just causes listed therein and must be exercised reasonably, not arbitrarily or capriciously." Syllabus point 3 in Beverlin v. Board of Education of Lewis County, W.Va., 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975).

Stephen A. Wickland, Clarksburg, for appellant.

Lucien R. Sammons, Jr., West Union, for appellees.

HARSHBARGER, Justice:

James J. Fox, a West Virginia teacher for twenty-three years and employed by the Doddridge County Board of Education since 1958, was dismissed by the board for wilful neglect of duty because he missed a parent-teacher conference. He appealed to his circuit court, which affirmed and hence here.

The charges against him were set forth in a February 5, 1975 letter by the Doddridge County School Superintendent:

1. Failure to inform the high school principal of his intention to be absent from a scheduled parent-teacher conference held on January 29, 1975;

2. failure to attend the scheduled parent-teacher conference thereby not affording parents an opportunity to discuss mutual educational concerns of their children;

3. failure to provide an explanation of his absence to the school principal upon his arrival at school on January 30, 1975; and

4. failure to provide a valid excuse for his absence from the parent-teacher conference when requested to do so by the principal on January 30, 1975.

He was given a hearing by the board before he was fired by its unanimous vote, pursuant to W.Va.Code, 18A-2-8.

The evidence was undisputed that he did not attend the conference. There was considerable conflict about the other derelictions with which he was charged.

This Court does not sit a a super-Board of Education. We do not substitute our judgment for that of the school authorities of Doddridge County. We readily accept the degree of import which the superintendent and board ascribe to the parent-teacher conference and its role in public education and we understand the need for teacher discipline. However, what may be a wholly appropriate basis for one type of disciplinary action may not support another unduly severe and overbearing form of punishment.

Syllabus point 3 in Beverlin v. Board of Education of Lewis County, W.Va., 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975), states, "The authority of a county board of education to dismiss a teacher under W.Va.Code 1931, 18A-2-8, as amended, must be based upon the just causes listed therein and must be exercised reasonably, not arbitrarily or capriciously."

We find that Fox was not deprived of any constitutional rights. The Court's analysis in Beverlin, supra, at 557 is applicable:

We do not believe this case has constitutional infirmities. Although the petitioner was deprived of a substantial contractual right, such state action as was taken by the superintendent and the Board of Education satisfied due process requirements. Beverlin was accorded actual notice, a meaningful (albeit unsuccessful) hearing, the opportunity to confront his accusers, assistance of counsel and the availabilities of remedies for review. In that regard, he cannot ask for more. We do not question that Beverlin is entitled to equal protection under the law. He is entitled to treatment that is customarily and regularly given to others in a similar position. James v. West Virginia Board of Regents, 322 F.Supp. 217 (S.D.W.Va.1971). Nevertheless, the fact that some other teachers occasionally left school, without prior permission, because of illness within their families . . . does not demonstrate that Beverlin was treated differently and unfairly in comparison with others similarly situate. That evidence does not rise to a level necessary to substantiate a denial of equal protection.

In this action, Fox was given actual notice, a meaningful hearing, the opportunity to confront his accusers, assistance of counsel and has exercised his right to judicial review.

Thus, the only question before us is whether his unexcused absence from the parent-teacher conference constituted wilful neglect of duty warranting his dismissal. We believe it did not for the simple reason that the punishment does not fit the misdeed. Unexcused absence...