Moffitt v. Batesville School Dist., 82-177

• Decision Date: 20 December 1982
• Docket Number: No. 82-177,82-177
• Citation: Moffitt v. Batesville School Dist., 278 Ark. 77, 643 S.W.2d 557 (Ark. 1982)
• Parties: , 8 Ed. Law Rep. 877 Marsha MOFFITT, Appellant, v. BATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 557

643 S.W.2d 557

278 Ark. 77, 8 Ed. Law Rep. 877

Marsha MOFFITT, Appellant, v.BATESVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee.

No. 82-177.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Dec. 20, 1982.

Cearley, Mitchell & Roachell by Richard W. Roachell, Little Rock, for appellant.

G. Ross Smith, P.A., Little Rock, for appellee.

HICKMAN, Justice.

This is an appeal by Marsha Moffitt, a teacher in the Batesville School District, from a decision of the Independence County Circuit Court upholding the school board's termination of her contract.The issue on appeal is whether the school board had any cause to dismiss her according to the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of 1979. Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 80-1264 through 80-1264.10(Repl.1980).

Mrs. Moffitt had been a teacher in the Batesville School District for twelve years when she was terminated.She was a nonprobationary teacher whose contract could only be terminated for "any cause which is not arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory, or for violating the reasonable rules and regulations promulgated by the school board."Ark.Stat.Ann. § 80-1264.9(b).Chapman v. Hamburg Public Schools, 274 Ark. 391, 625 S.W.2d 477(1981).

Mrs. Moffitt's contract was renewed in March of 1981.However, she was informed in writing by the principal on May 15, 1981, that because of problems she had had during the school year he would take a serious look at any future recommendation to rehire her.A few days later the principal decided that Mrs. Moffitt violated two rules of the school district.She had destroyed the final examinations of her students and she had failed to turn in on time a list of students who had lost or damaged their books.

After final examinations, several parents complained when they learned their children had received lower grades in Mrs. Moffitt's class.Then they found that the final examination papers had been thrown out and they could not find out why.Mrs. Moffitt claimed that she did not understand the rule to apply to spring semester finals because the students would not be back in class.Because of Mrs. Moffitt's actions it was necessary to reconstruct the grades of certain students.Those who had a higher grade before the final examination were given the benefit of the doubt and the higher grade.Those whose grades were raised by the final examination were allowed to keep the final higher grade.

Regarding the books, a notice was sent to the teachers about their various duties during the last week of school, May 18th through May 21st.On the notice was the following sentence: "Don't forget to turn in the following on the day assigned if possible."Listed thereafter were various reports due and one of them was the report of damaged or lost books.The report of damaged books was due May 19th and evidently Mrs. Moffitt turned hers in on May 20th.It was the school's policy to retain the report cards of students who had lost or damaged texts until they reimbursed the school for the books.When Mrs. Moffitt turned her list in, the report cards had already been mailed and it was necessary for the secretary to mail out to all of the students' parents, some seventy in this instance, a notice of fines owed.According to the school secretary this cost the school district about $300.00.There was evidence that no teacher had ever turned in a list of seventy damaged or lost books and that rarely had the number exceeded five or six.

Consequently, the superintendent of schools informed Mrs. Moffitt by letter that he would recommend to the school board that her contract for the next year be terminated.In that letter four reasons were given:

(1) Deficiencies in your job performance as evidenced by your 1980-81 evaluation form and failure to improve in these areas as evidenced by the numerous counseling forms that your principal and assistant principal have written up from their observations in your classroom and upon recommendations that they have made to you as to ways you might improve.

(2) The principal's final recommendation that unless improvement in your job performance was evidenced in the 1981-82 school year it would be doubtful that he could recommend re-employment.

(3) Violation of Policy IHA in that you destroyed semester test exams before students or parents had a chance to review them.

(4) Failure to follow the principal's directive in sending students who had lost or damaged books to the office for corrective action.

At Mrs. Moffitt's request a hearing was held before the school board.Documentary evidence was introduced reflecting the problems Mrs. Moffitt had during the school year.First, a counseling form dated September 25, 1980 indicating that Mrs. Moffitt was late to school every day was introduced.Her explanation was deemed satisfactory by the principal.Another counseling form signed in October by Charles E. Knox, the principal, noted a discipline problem with her students in class; he said they threw paper wads, showed disrespect...