Meckley v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 21 July 1989
• Docket Number: No. 18008,18008
• Parties: , 56 Ed. Law Rep. 328 Rose A. MECKLEY v. The KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Page 839

383 S.E.2d 839

181 W.Va. 657, 56 Ed. Law Rep. 328

Rose A. MECKLEY v. The KANAWHA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al.

No. 18008.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

July 21, 1989.

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. [1067], 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975)." Fox v. Board of Education, 160 W.Va. 668, 236 S.E.2d 243 (1977).

Hardway & Cometti, Joseph C. Cometti, Charleston, for Rose A. Meckley.

John O. Kiser, Charleston, for Kanawha County Bd. of Educ.

PER CURIAM:

This case is on appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County which affirmed the dismissal from employment of the appellant, Rose A. Meckley, a teacher, by the appellee, the Board of Education of Kanawha County ("Board"). The former superintendent of the Board, Robert E. Kittle, and the principal of the school where appellant taught, Phillip E. Jepson, are also appellees. For reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the order of the circuit court.

The appellant was a teacher at Shoals Elementary School from 1976 to June 9, 1982, on which date she was suspended by the superintendent. During her last four years at the school, she taught third grade. Apparently, trouble between the appellant and school authorities began in May, 1981, when she refused to attend a PTA meeting. In September, 1981, she also failed to attend such meetings. During October, 1981, she failed to attend one faculty meeting and left another meeting that was in progress. During January, 1982, the appellant refused to meet in the principal's office with the parent of a student, J.B. ¹ She met with Board officials in February, 1982 where her behavior was discussed. By a letter dated March 1, 1982, the superintendent directed her to attend PTA meetings, other meetings scheduled by the principal and meetings with parents. She failed to attend two faculty meetings in May, 1982 and one in June, 1982. For one of the May, 1982 meetings she took a "personal leave day." Apparently, a crisis at the school occurred when, on June 8, 1982, the appellant refused to give a report card to one student, J.B., yet gave the report cards to all other students. She refused the principal's direction to give the report card to him. On June 9, 1982, another official of the school board went to the school and requested the report card. She refused his request. Furthermore, the appellant refused to return the permanent record card of J.B. to the school office at the end of the 1981-82 school year.

Based upon the actions by the appellant, charges were brought against her in a letter by the superintendent to her dated June 18, 1982. The letter noted the superintendent's recommendation to the Board on June 17, 1982 that the appellant be dismissed from employment as an elementary teacher at Shoals Elementary School upon the grounds of "insubordination and willful neglect of duty."

Specifically, the following charges were made:

(1) You willfully and knowingly refused to attend PTA meetings although requested and directed to do so by your supervisor;

(2) You willfully and knowingly refused to attend faculty meetings;

(3) You refused to meet or confer with parents in the principal's office although requested to do so;

(4) You refused to issue a student report card to the parents of [J.B.] although requested to do so by your principal, the Assistant Superintendent for Administration, and the County Superintendent;

(5) You refused to return the permanent record card of [J.B.] to the principal's office as required by Board policy although requested to do so; and

(6) You have continually refused to cooperate or associate with parents, your students, or other staff members at Shoals Elementary School[.]

On July 28, 1982, a meeting of the Board was held on which date testimony was presented on behalf of the Board and the appellant. On September 20, 1982, the Board made its findings that the appellant was "guilty of insubordination and wilful neglect of duty" and that she should be dismissed as a teacher. ²

Although several issues are raised by the parties, one primary issue is dispositive of the case. Therefore, we will address that primary issue: Was the action taken by the Board in dismissing the appellant upon the grounds of insubordination and willful neglect of duty reasonable? ³ We conclude that the Board's action was reasonable.

W.Va.Code, 18A-2-8 [1985] provides that a board may suspend or dismiss a person in its employment for "insubordination ... or wilful neglect of duty[.]" However, as stated in syllabus point 3 of Beverlin v. Board of Education, 158 W.Va. 1067, 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975): "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." See also Fox v. Board of Education, 160 W.Va. 668, 236 S.E.2d 243 (1977).

In Fox v. Board of Education, supra, this Court found that a teacher who was dismissed under W.Va.Code, 18A-2-8 for wilful neglect of duty for missing a parent-teacher conference could be disciplined. Although the Court held discipline may lie, dismissal was too severe in that case. The Court did, however, state:

We do not attempt to formulate a comprehensive definition of 'wilful neglect of duty' that would reasonably support a teacher's permanent dismissal. A continuing course of lesser infractions may well, when viewed in the aggregate, be sufficient. And we may envision a single act of malfeasance, whereby severe consequences are generated, that merits a dismissal.

Fox v. Board of Education, 160 W.Va. at 672, 236 S.E.2d at 246.

Other courts have upheld dismissals for insubordination for acts similar to that committed by the appellant in this case. Johnson v. United School District Joint School Board, 201 Pa.Super. 375, 191 A.2d 897 (1963) (wherein a "temporary" teacher was directed to attend an open house where parents talk with teachers regarding students, yet refused to attend); Gilbertson v. McAlister, 403 F.Supp. 1 (D.Conn.1975) (wherein, among other acts, a teacher refused to comply with orders of a principal). See generally annotation, Dismissal of Public School Teacher Because of Unauthorized Absence or Tardiness, 78 A.L.R.3d 117 (1977 and Supp.1988).

Certainly, the actions of the appellant, collectively, in this case are such that her dismissal by the Board was reasonable and proper. A review of the record reveals a teacher who was a disruptive influence at the school and one who essentially made her own rules and then followed those rules. She pursued a continuing course of infractions, which, when viewed in the aggregate, was sufficient for dismissal. Although the charges related to both insubordination and willful neglect of duty, insubordination was the primary ground giving cause for dismissal. In most instances, she was directed to take action, either attend certain meetings or give a student a report card or return a permanent record card, yet refused to do so. We, therefore, consider those continuing acts of insubordination the most serious.

The beginning of the controversy regarding the withholding of the report card and permanent record card began in January, 1982. In that month, the appellant issued report cards which covered the second nine-week period of the 1981-82 school year. One of the students in the appellant's class received two "U's," representing unsatisfactory performances, one in math and one in spelling. The student's parents requested a meeting with the appellant and the principal. The principal met with the student's parents, but the appellant refused to do so, despite repeated requests by the principal that the appellant attend the meeting.

The principal then met with the appellant on three separate occasions subsequent to his meeting with the student's parents, to discuss the appellant's grading policy. The principal determined that the appellant's grading policy was not adequate. Specifically, the principal was concerned with the fact that only four grades in spelling were included in the grade report. One of the test grades represented forty percent of the nine-week grade, and it was administered two days after the nine-week period was over, but it covered material that was taught during the nine-week period in question. Furthermore, the principal determined that the skills covered in this test were not part of the skills covered for third grade spelling in the Board's program of studies. Removing this test score from the student's grade would have given him an "S" in spelling, representing a satisfactory performance.

Similarly, the principal was concerned with the appellant's computation of the student's math grade, which represented only three grades. The principal determined that the student's daily work should have been taken into account in computing his math grade. Moreover, the principal testified that, according to the "Handbook for Elementary Student Evaluation," a minimum of nine grades is required for each nine-week grading period. Based upon his determinations, the principal gave the appellant the opportunity to reevaluate the grades, taking into consideration the daily performance of the students. The appellant refused to reevaluate the grades, so the principal changed the student's grades in math and spelling from "U" to "S." The principal did not reevaluate nor change the grades of any other student.

On June 8, 1982, the appellant issued report cards to the students in her class, but did not issue one to the student whose grades were changed. She also retained the student's permanent record card. Her contention was that her conduct was...