Lexington County School Dist. One Bd. of Trustees v. Bost, 22126

• Decision Date: 07 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. 22126,22126
• Citation: 282 S.C. 32,316 S.E.2d 677
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: , 17 Ed. Law Rep. 1253 LEXINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ONE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Appellant, v. Larry A. BOST, Respondent.

Page 677

316 S.E.2d 677

282 S.C. 32, 17 Ed. Law Rep. 1253

LEXINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ONE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Appellant, v. Larry A. BOST, Respondent.

No. 22126.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 7, 1984.

Bruce E. Davis, Camden, and James B. Richardson, Jr., of Ham & Richardson, Columbia, for appellant.

Jay Bender of Belser, Baker, Barwick, Toal & Bender, Columbia, for respondent.

HARWELL, Justice:

The respondent Larry A. Bost initiated this action for reinstatement to his position as head varsity boys basketball coach at Lexington High School. We reverse.

The respondent was employed by the appellant Lexington County School District One Board of Trustees in the 1978-79 school year as "teacher-coach". The next two years he entered into new contracts to serve as teacher-coach. During the 1980-81 year, he served as teacher and as head boys varsity basketball coach and girls track coach.

The respondent's coaching record was ten wins and about fifty-six losses in three years. (First year: 6-16; second year: 0-23; third year: 4-17). Immediately prior to his third year as coach, the high school principal discussed the respondent's record with him and informed him that he must improve it that year. Then, at the end of the 1980-81 basketball season the principal again met with the respondent and informed him he would not recommend him as basketball coach the following year. The respondent's contract for 1981-82 called for his classification as teacher at the schedule salary.

The respondent filed a petition with the Lexington County Board of Education pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. § 59-19-510 (1976). The Board held after a hearing that Bost had been denied procedural protection afforded by school district policies and directed he be reinstated as coach. The school district appealed to the circuit court. Prior to the court hearing, the appellant reinstated Bost as coach of the girls track team but not as basketball coach. The circuit court agreed with the Board and ordered Bost reinstated. The appellant school district then instituted this appeal.

The appellant first contends that the circuit court erroneously applied the substantial evidence rule in according deference to the County Board's interpretation of the district's tenure policy. We agree. The substantial evidence rule applies to court review of cases brought under the Teacher Employment and Dismissal Act, S.C.Code Ann. § 59-25-410 et seq. (1976 and Cum.Supp.1983). ¹ Law[s] v. Richland County School District No. One, 270 S.C. 492, 243 S.E.2d 192 (1978). In Law[s], the Court noted that educational authorities need discretion to perform their duties and that courts must not substitute their judgment for that of those authorities. In the instant case, the school district and County Board disagree. The courts must resolve the conflict. The appeal to the circuit court from the decision of the County Board of Education should have been a trial de novo in which the record of proceedings below was admitted as evidence but not accorded deference. Code § 59-19-560 (1976).

Section 59-19-560 requires the circuit judge to try these cases as equity cases. Therefore, the Supreme Court can find facts in accordance with its view of the preponderance of the evidence. Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976). This Court, of course, can also correct errors of law.

The appellant contends that Bost's coaching responsibilities were extracurricular duties not covered by the school district policies requiring written evaluations. We agree. The Professional Personnel Tenure Policy (GBL) provides:

The reemployment of professional personnel shall be continuous so long as the employee's performance is found satisfactory based on annual evaluation of his work, and so long as the District needs a position for which the staff member is qualified.

The policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel (GBI) refers to "the teaching process". It requires written evaluation of "all professional staff members" and applies to "personnel who are required to hold a teacher's certificate."

The respondent contends that he, as a "teacher-coach", is a "professional staff member" who was required to be evaluated in writing before his coaching duties were terminated. We disagree. Policy GBL requires "reemployment" of professional staff members in some capacity and written evaluation of them in that capacity. The policy is satisfied here because the respondent remains employed by the district as a teacher and is evaluated in writing for his teaching ability. The evidence reveals that the respondent's duties as coach do not require a state teacher's certificate. ² Therefore, the policy, by its terms, does not apply to coaching duties.

Furthermore, the record indicates that coaching is an extracurricular activity for which employees are separately compensated. They are paid on a ten-month rather than nine-month basis and are given a...