Russell County School Bd. v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 22 September 1989
• Docket Number: No. 880942,880942
• Citation: 384 S.E.2d 598,238 Va. 372
• Parties: , 56 Ed. Law Rep. 646 RUSSELL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD v. Stephen L. ANDERSON. Record
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 598

384 S.E.2d 598

238 Va. 372, 56 Ed. Law Rep. 646

RUSSELL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD v. Stephen L. ANDERSON.

Record No. 880942.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

Sept. 22, 1989.

James P. McElligott, Jr. (Scott S. Cairns, Richmond; Randall B. Campbell, Lebanon; McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, Richmond, on briefs), for appellant.

Warren David Harless (Michael W. Smith; Patricia M. Powis; Christian, Barton, Epps, Brent & Chappell, Richmond, on brief), for appellee.

Amicus Curiae: Virginia School Boards Ass'n (Kathleen S. Mehfoud; Lacy & Mehfoud, P.C., Richmond, on brief), for appellant.

Present: CARRICO, C.J., COMPTON, STEPHENSON, RUSSELL, THOMAS and WHITING, JJ., and POFF, Senior Justice.

THOMAS, Justice.

The Russell County School Board (the Board), appeals a decision of the Circuit Court of Russell County which reversed the Board's ruling that Stephen L. Anderson should be dismissed as a teacher. The Board contends that the trial court erred by, among other things, misapplying the "substantial evidence" test, relying upon matters outside the record, substituting its judgment for that of the Board, and applying erroneous legal principles. We agree that the trial court erred. Therefore, we will reverse its judgment.

In 1981, the Board hired Anderson as a teacher. In 1986, he was the subject of his first disciplinary proceeding. At that time, a fact-finding panel recommended that Anderson be placed on one year's probation and that he be observed in his classroom work. The Board accepted the panel's recommendation, placed Anderson on probation, and transferred him to the Lebanon Middle School for the school year 1986-1987 to teach seventh grade history and social studies.

Events which occurred at the Lebanon Middle School led to the present dispute. In April 1987, the superintendent of schools advised Anderson, in writing, that his conduct was unacceptable and that the superintendent would recommend his dismissal. The superintendent's letter read, in pertinent part, as follows:

Pursuant to your request, I will provide the reasons for my recommendation that you be dismissed from your job as Social Studies Teacher at Lebanon Middle School.

Your assignment for the History Day project, which you discussed with the History 7-4 class on February 6, 1987, was inappropriate, unprofessional, and improper.

Throughout the 1986-87 school year, matters have been discussed and emphasized which foster an unhealthy attitude toward violence and violent topics. Throughout the 1986-87 school year, matters have been discussed and emphasized which are grossly inappropriate for the age level of the students involved.

You were insubordinate in not obeying Mr. Bruce Warner's instructions to make available to Mr. Myrl Allen a copy of a tape recording of a parental conference with Mr. and Mrs. Myrl Allen concerning problems in your class.

You have used disparaging language toward students during the 1986-87 school year. On numerous occasions, you have used abusive language at school in reference to other teachers and to the administration in such a manner as to be disruptive to the normal operation of the school.

You have made threats against the principal and assistant principal of Lebanon Middle School in the presence of other faculty members.

The behavior which caused you to be placed on probation for the 1986-87 school year has not been improved upon.

Anderson responded to the letter by requesting a fact-finding panel pursuant to Code § 22.1-310.

The panel held hearings on July 15 and 16, 1987, and filed its report on August 13, 1987, which set forth its findings of fact, conclusions, and recommendations. The panel did not agree that all of the superintendent's charges had been substantiated. It found only the following facts in favor of the superintendent:

1. that Anderson had suggested a skit in his history class in which a white girl and a white boy would conceive a child but the white girl would blame it on a black boy who would be lynched; the child would be born white and the community would feel that a great tragedy had occurred;

2. that Anderson had suggested a skit involving a Nazi rally;

3. that Anderson told one of his history classes how to make a "Molotov cocktail";

4. that on numerous occasions Anderson discussed guns and bombs with the students in his classes;

5. that Anderson referred to at least one female teacher as "female dog";

6. that Anderson referred to fake dog feces that he found in his classroom as "looking like the school board"; and

7. that Anderson said to another teacher that "it would be best to just shoot Mr. Warner [the principal] and Mr. Hartsock [the assistant principal] and be done with it."

The panel concluded on the basis of a 2-1 vote that there was "no basis for either the dismissal of the Teacher or the placing of the Teacher on probation."

On September 10, 1987, the Board rejected the panel's recommendation and voted to dismiss Anderson. Because the Board's decision was at variance with the panel's recommendation, the Board, pursuant to Code § 22.1-313(C), filed a written decision which included its rationale. The Board concluded, as follows:

1. that the skit proposed by Anderson in which a white girl and white boy would conceive a child, but a black boy would be blamed and lynched, even though it would later be proved that he was not the baby's father "was inappropriate and improper for students of [the age level of those in Anderson's class] and is grounds for dismissal";

2. that Anderson's instructing one of his history classes in the specifics of making a "Molotov Cocktail" was "seriously inappropriate," "unrelated to the coursework," and "grounds for dismissal";

3. that Anderson referred to "at least one female teacher as a female dog" and to one of his supervisors as a "pig." The Board considered Anderson's conduct in both instances wrong even if the statements were made to just one other teacher, "disruptive by their very nature to the professional association of the teachers," and "grounds for dismissal";

4. that when Anderson found fake dog feces in his classroom he stated it looked "like the school board." The Board found these remarks "unprofessional" and "inappropriate," improper no matter what person or organization might be the subject of the comparison, and "grounds for dismissal" 5. that Anderson's statement to another teacher that it would be best just to shoot the principal and assistant principal "and be done with it," was inappropriate and "not a proper way to criticize the actions of" the principal or assistant principal. And, that such remarks were disruptive to the school by their "very nature" and were "grounds for dismissal";

6. that Anderson asked one of his female students, "Have you gotten any tongue from anyone?" A remark which, from the Board's review of the panel record, was never denied by Anderson, but would have been denied were it untrue. And that this remark was "grounds for dismissal";

7. that when Anderson was told that some of the students in one of his classes had spat on a copy of the United States Constitution, his reply was that the students "had some sense." The Board found this charge uncontradicted in the panel record and considered it "very disruptive behavior on the part of" Anderson, "improper and inappropriate for children of [the age level involved]," and conduct which encouraged "a lack of respect for the Constitution and for authority." This was deemed "grounds for dismissal";

8. that Anderson stated that one of his female students had "used her sexual charms to keep the boys" in her class from voting in favor of a mock constitution. The Board considered the remark "inappropriate" for the "age level of the students involved" and "grounds for dismissal";

9. that Anderson permitted his students to hang drawings in his classroom which emphasized violence and disrespect for authority; ¹

10. that the incident which involved spitting on a copy of the Constitution was a type of discipline problem and that Anderson had been placed on probation the previous year because of a discipline problem;

11. and, that, "[t]he individual instances cited, taken singly or as part of a pattern, require that the teacher be dismissed for the good of the students and the school system."

Plainly, the Board, in reaching its decision to dismiss Anderson, agreed with some of the panel's findings; disagreed with others; and, in some instances, relied on the panel record to find its own facts in the first instance.

Anderson responded to the Board's decision by filing suit in which he alleged that

the Board did not have good cause to dismiss a continuing contract teacher based upon the Panel's findings of fact; that the Board found that [Anderson] should be dismissed for statements [Anderson] made which ... were not disruptive to the normal operation of the school; and the Board's decision [was] unsupported by substantial evidence on the record combined as a whole.

The trial court agreed with Anderson.

In its final decree, dated May 17, 1988, the trial court ruled that the "decision to discharge [Anderson] was not supported by substantial evidence." The final decree incorporated by reference a letter opinion dated April 25, 1988. There, the trial court wrote that the facts found by the panel were "equal to facts found by a jury" and if the Board questioned the reasonableness of the panel's findings, the Board's option was to hold its own hearing and find its own facts.

The trial court next ruled that the Board's decision could not be based on anything other than the facts found by the panel. According to the trial court, because the Board had not conducted its own fact-finding hearing, its decision to dismiss Anderson could be upheld only if it was substantially supported by the following facts:

1. that Anderson suggested two skits with themes of "racial prejudice" or the influence of "charismatic leaders";

2. that...