Gillett v. Unified School Dist. No. 276 Jewell County

• Decision Date: 19 January 1980
• Docket Number: No. 50126,50126
• Citation: 605 P.2d 105,227 Kan. 71
• Parties: In the Matter of the Due Process Hearing of Jessie Mae GILLETT, Appellee, v. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 276 JEWELL COUNTY, Kansas, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 105

605 P.2d 105

227 Kan. 71

In the Matter of the Due Process Hearing of Jessie Mae

GILLETT, Appellee, v. UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 276 JEWELL COUNTY, Kansas, Appellant.

No. 50126.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Jan. 19, 1980.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Under the Kansas due process statute (K.S.A.1977 Supp. 72-5436 Et seq.), a tenured teacher may be terminated or nonrenewed only if good cause is shown, including any ground which is put forward by the school board in good faith and which is not arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, or irrelevant to the school board's task of building up and maintaining an efficient school system.

2. Under K.S.A.1977 Supp. 72-5436 Et seq., the purpose of the due process hearing is to inquire into the reasons for the dismissal or nonrenewal of the teacher and to determine whether or not the evidence presented establishes good cause within the spirit and purpose of the statute.

3. In reviewing a school board's decision to nonrenew a teacher, pursuant to K.S.A.1977 Supp. 72-5443, a district court may not substitute its judgment for that of the school board or examine the issues de novo; it is limited to deciding whether: (1) The school board acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, or capriciously; (2) the decision was substantially supported by the evidence; and (3) the school board's action was within the scope of its authority.

4. Where a notice of nonrenewal is timely served on a teacher prior to the statutory deadline, supplemental reasons for nonrenewal served later may be considered by a hearing committee, provided the teacher is afforded a full opportunity to defend against the supplemental reasons and has not otherwise been prejudiced.

5. The record is examined in an appeal to the district court from a decision of a school board not to renew a teacher's employment contract and it is Held that the district court erred in finding that there was not substantial evidence sufficient to establish good cause, justifying the school board's decision of nonrenewal.

Fred W. Rausch, Jr., Topeka, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.

Rodney G. Nitz, of King, Stokes, Knudson, & Nitz, Chartered, Salina, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.

PRAGER, Justice:

This case involves a controversy between a school teacher and school board over the nonrenewal of her teaching contract. Unified school district No. 276 appeals from a judgment of the district court reversing the school board's decision not to renew the teacher's employment contract. The trial court ordered the teacher to be reinstated with back pay.

The facts in the case are not greatly in dispute and essentially are as follows: Unified school district No. 276 is located in Jewell County. Jessie Mae Gillett is a tenured teacher who had been continuously employed by the school district for a period of seven years. Her last term of employment covered the 1976-77 school year. On March 11, 1977, the school board delivered to Mrs. Gillett a notice of nonrenewal of her teaching contract for the following year pursuant to K.S.A.1977 Supp. 72-5437. The notice, which was contained in a letter from the president and clerk of the school board, was in the form required by statute. The reason given for nonrenewal was the existence of criminal charges of shoplifting pending against Mrs. Gillett in Hastings, Nebraska. Mrs. Gillett promptly filed a request for a due process hearing in the matter. On May 5, 1977, the board served on the teacher a notice which contained a supplemental list of reasons for nonrenewal including the following:

1. Inability to properly handle school funds;

2. Excessive absences from teaching school duties for allegedly being ill;

3. Improper use of sick leave;

4. Physical and mental instability; and

5. Loss of community, student, and school board respect for this teacher.

Mrs. Gillett, through her counsel, objected to the consideration of the supplemental reasons contending they were not timely served. The hearing committee overruled the objection, stating that it would consider the supplementary reasons.

On September 21, 1977, a full evidentiary hearing was held by the hearing committee in Mankato. The committee heard evidence pertaining to both the original reason and the supplemental reasons for nonrenewal. The evidence presented at the hearing will be summarized in detail later in the opinion. At this point, it is sufficient to state that the evidence disclosed that the teacher had been charged in Adams County, Nebraska, district court in Hastings in two separate cases for the offense of shoplifting. One incident occurred on October 16, 1976, when Mrs. Gillett took two articles from Gibson's shopping center in Hastings. The other incident occurred on November 17, 1976, when Mrs. Gillett took an article from the Safeway store. In regard to those charges, the committee heard the testimony of Mrs. Gillett's psychiatrist, Dr. Dale Peters, who was called as a witness by the teacher. He testified that she had a metabolism disorder, triggered by certain foods, which resulted in periodic alterations in her state of consciousness. His testimony tended to show that the two shoplifting episodes occurred when Mrs. Gillett was in such an altered state of consciousness, that at the time she was unable to control her actions, and that she was, therefore, incapable of forming any criminal intent. At the time of the hearing, the criminal charges were still pending but had been continued in order to provide Mrs. Gillett with an opportunity to obtain psychiatric and medical treatment. Other evidence was introduced pertaining to the supplemental reasons for nonrenewal.

The testimony presented at the hearing was transcribed, and counsel were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the hearing committee. On January 24, 1978, the hearing committee entered its order recommending by a two-to-one vote that the school board reverse its decision of nonrenewal for the reason that there was insufficient evidence to support the charges. In its findings, the committee found that the school board had failed to show that the pending charges had any harmful effect on the community, the faculty or the students. The committee further concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show a loss of student respect or of ineffectiveness of the teacher or to establish the supplemental charges.

The recommendation of the hearing committee was delivered to the school board, which considered all of the evidence presented in the case together with arguments and briefs of counsel. The board unanimously decided to follow its previous decision of nonrenewal of Mrs. Gillett's contract. The board made no findings of fact and gave no specific reason in writing for rejecting the committee's recommendation. Mrs. Gillett then appealed the school board's decision to the district court, using K.S.A. 60-2101(D ) as required by K.S.A.1977 Supp. 72-5443. The district court reviewed the transcript of the evidence presented at the due process hearing and heard arguments of counsel. The district court entered judgment in favor of Mrs. Gillett, ordering her reinstated with back pay. As a part of the journal entry of judgment, the trial court made findings of fact including the following:

10. The court finds that the supplemental reasons for nonrenewal should not have been considered by the hearing committee since they were filed subsequent to March 15, 1977, and contained nothing which was not known or should have been known on March 15, 1977.

11. That the scope of review by this court should be confined to the reason given for the petitioner's nonrenewal as contained in the notice of March 11, 1977.

12. The court finds that the nonrenewal of the petitioner by the Board of Education is an act that is within the authority of the board.

13. The court finds that the respondent did not act in a fraudulent or capricious manner. The board's conduct might be arbitrary only to the extent of not following the hearing committee's decision. That the Board of Education's not following the recommendation of the hearing committee's recommendation is not in and of itself an arbitrary act.

14. The court finds that the respondent failed to present substantial evidence to support their reason for nonrenewal.

15. The court further finds that had the court considered the supplemental reasons for nonrenewal, it would have found that the board had also failed to present substantial evidence to support nonrenewal for any of the supplemental reasons given.

Following entry of judgment by the district court, the school board appealed to this court. The school board raises two points of claimed error:

1. The district court erred in holding that there was no substantial evidence to uphold the school board's decision to nonrenew the teacher's employment contract.

2. The trial court erred in holding that the hearing committee had improperly considered the school board's supplemental reasons for nonrenewal submitted to the teacher on May 5, 1977.

The teacher has filed a cross-appeal, claiming that the district court erred in holding that the board did not act in an arbitrary, fraudulent, or capricious manner in refusing to follow the recommendations of the hearing committee.

Before considering the evidence, it would be helpful to review certain basic concepts and principles of law pertaining to the termination of employment contracts of tenured teachers and the due process procedure provided for by K.S.A.1977 Supp. 72-5436 Et seq. At the outset, it should be stated that the dismissal of teachers and the nonrenewal of their teaching contracts is sometimes a complex, difficult process with serious implications. Because of the fact that, under the statutory procedures, the dismissal or nonrenewal of a teacher requires a long and time-consuming effort, school administrators and boards of education are often reluctant to institute such procedures...