Housley v. North Panola Consol. School Dist., Civ. A. No. DC 84-148-D-O.

• Decision Date: 24 March 1987
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. DC 84-148-D-O.
• Citation: 656 F. Supp. 1087
• Parties: Grant HOUSLEY, Plaintiff, v. NORTH PANOLA CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi

656 F. Supp. 1087

Grant HOUSLEY, Plaintiff, v. NORTH PANOLA CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. DC 84-148-D-O.

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, E.D.

March 24, 1987.

Ronald W. Lewis, Oxford, Miss., for plaintiff.

Thomas S. Shuler, Sardis, Miss., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

DAVIDSON, District Judge.

The instant action was brought by the plaintiff, Grant Housley, alleging that the defendant, North Panola Consolidated School District, has deprived him of procedural and substantive due process rights by refusing to renew Housley's contract as director of the North Panola Consolidated School District Vocational Technical Center in Como, Mississippi. Housley was originally employed by the North Panola Consolidated School District in September 1980 for a contract period of one year ending on June 30, 1981. He was subsequently reemployed for successive one year terms for the 1981-1982, 1982-1983 and 1983-1984 school years. Housley's last contract with the school district terminated on June 30, 1984.

On February 21, 1984 Mr. Hosea Grisham, the superintendent of the district, recommended to the Board of Trustees of the district that Housley be re-employed for the 1984-1985 school year. After discussion, however, a motion was made to disapprove the superintendent's recommendation for several reasons, namely: (1) Housley's non-compatibility with teachers and other personnel at the Vo-Tech Center; (2) the deterioration of programs at the Vo-Tech Center; and (3) the unprofessional handling of students at the Vo-Tech Center. Based on these reasons three members of the board voted not to re-employ Housley for the 1984-1985 school year. One voted in Housley's favor, and one abstained. Based on this vote the Board of Trustees instructed the superintendent to give written notice to Housley prior to March 1, 1984 of his nonreemployment and to advise Housley that he was entitled, upon request, to the following:

(1) Written notice for the reasons of his nonreemployment, together with a summary of the factual basis thereof;

(2) An opportunity for a hearing to present matters relevant to the reasons given for his nonreemployment, including any reason Housley felt to be the reason for nonreemployment;

(3) A fair and impartial hearing before the Board or a hearing officer; and

(4) The right to be represented at such hearing by legal counsel.

This notice was given to Housley on February 28, 1984.

Housley made a written request that he be provided with the above procedures. On March 28, 1984 the district attorney provided Housley with notice of the three reasons stated by the board for not re-employing Housley. The district attorney also told him that he was not re-employed because of the poor relationship that had developed between the Vo-Tech Center and the community. This letter also informed Housley that a hearing had been scheduled for April 10, 1984. Housley then obtained legal counsel who requested that certain information be provided him concerning the reasons given for Housley's nonreemployment. This information was furnished to the attorney within the same month.

The hearing scheduled for Housley was rescheduled for June 11, 1984. Melvin McClure, an attorney from Senatobia, Mississippi, presided over the hearing. Testimony was taken at this hearing and at the end of the day, the hearing was scheduled to continue on a subsequent date. Additional testimony was later taken at the subsequent hearing.

Prior to this hearing Housley was provided with subpoena power to compel witnesses to attend and give testimony, the opportunity to confront and cross-examine all witnesses presented by North Panola Consolidated School District, and the opportunity to present witnesses on his own behalf and to have a lawyer assist him. A record of the proceeding was also made.

At the end of the testimony, the hearing officer requested the attorneys to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. After receiving these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the hearing officer issued a decision on July 27, 1984. The hearing officer held that the proceeding was controlled by the School Employment Procedure Law of 1977 and that the school district had complied with this law in its nonreemployment of Housley. The hearing officer held that the district's decision not to re-employ Housley was based on proper grounds. Based on the board's initial decision and the decision by the hearing officer, the board upheld its original decision not to renew Housley's contract for the 1984-1985 school year. The plaintiff evidently chose not to seek review of the action of the Board of Trustees by the Mississippi Chancery Courts as provided by Mississippi Code § 37-9-113.

The plaintiff has brought the instant action alleging that the Board of Trustee's decision not to re-employ him deprived him of a property interest without due process of law. Housley asserts that even though he was a non-tenured employee of the school district, he had obtained certain property interest in his job pursuant to Mississippi Code §§ 37-9-15 and 37-9-101, et seq.

The plaintiff's first argument is that the superintendent's recommendation of him for reemployment gives him an entitlement to reemployment unless the district shows good cause for refusing the recommendation. The plaintiff asserts that this good cause showing is required by § 37-9-15. The plaintiff asserts that the superintendent's recommendation bestowed certain pre-contractual rights upon him under § 37-9-15, and that this recommendation entitled the plaintiff to a qualified expectation of reemployment by the school district.

As authority for his assertions the plaintiff cites Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) and Perry v. Sinderman, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). These two cases require that the plaintiff have a reasonable, non-subjective expectation of reemployment. Although the court recognizes that this expectation of reemployment does not have to be an "iron clad contract" it must be more than a unilateral grasp at a broad construction of language in a statute with the hope of obtaining a property interest. The court recognizes, as the plaintiff asserts, that property interests are created by state law. In reviewing whether an individual has been deprived of a property interest, the court must first look to state law in order to ascertain whether a property interest actually exists. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976). The plaintiff asserts that the Mississippi Code § 37-9-15 and the Mississippi School Employment Procedures Law (SEPL) create a protectable property interest in public school employment. The court is of the opinion, however, that neither § 37-9-15 nor § 37-9-101, et seq., create in and of themselves a protectable property interest in public school employment.

Section 37-9-15 provides that:

The superintendent of each school district shall recommend to the Board of Trustees thereof the assistant superintendent, supervisors and principals to be employed for each of the schools of the districts except in the case of those Assistant Superintendents, Supervisors, and Principals who have been previously employed and who have a contract valid for the ensuing scholastic year. Unless good reason to the contrary exists, the Board of Trustees of the district shall approve and authorize the employment of the assistant superintendent, supervisors and principals so recommended. If, for any reason, the Board of Trustees of any school district shall decline to approve an assistant superintendent, supervisor or principal so recommended the superintendent shall make additional recommendations for the place or places to be filled.

The court is of the opinion that this statute does not create an entitlement in the plaintiff to reemployment unless good cause is shown by the District for not accepting the superintendent's recommendation. Good reasons for not approving the superintendent's recommendation must exist, but the statute further indicates that "any reason" may be the basis for the District declining to approve reemployment of a particular person.

In a nonreemployment proceeding, the Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "good cause is essentially an irrelevant concept." Mississippi Employment Security Commission v. Philadelphia Municipal Separate School District of Neshoba County, 437 So.2d 388, 396 (Miss. 1983). In the Philadelphia Municipal School District case the Mississippi Supreme Court held that a school administration is not required to demonstrate good cause for its decision that a particular school teacher will not be reemployed. Id. (citing Calhoun County Board of Education v. Hamblin, 360 So.2d 1236, 1239-40 (Miss.1978)). Under Mississippi law "the school administration may refuse to rehire a teacher for good reason, for bad reason, or for no reason at all.... Absent a violation of some vested substantive or procedural right, a non-rehire decision is beyond judicial review." Id. 437 So.2d at 397. Although this case concerned the non-rehiring of a teacher under Mississippi Code § 37-9-17 rather than the nonreemployment of a principal under § 37-9-15, this court is of the opinion that the same conclusion would be reached under § 37-9-15. This is true because the language in both sections concerning good cause is almost identical.

In the instant case unless the plaintiff can show that the school district based its decision not to rehire him upon legally impermissible considerations or that the school district violated some vested substantive or procedural right, the plaintiff has no cause of action. "The decision not to rehire a teacher or principal can be made for any reason not specifically prohibited by law, so long as the procedural requirements outlined in the School Employment...