Shenefield v. Sheridan County School Dist. No. 1

• Decision Date: 12 January 1976
• Docket Number: No. 4443,4443
• Citation: Shenefield v. Sheridan County School Dist. No. 1, 544 P.2d 870 (Wyo. 1976)
• Parties: 16 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1696, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,683 May P. SHENEFIELD, Appellant (Complainant below), v. SHERIDAN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Appellee (Respondent below).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 870

544 P.2d 870

16 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1696,

11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,683

May P. SHENEFIELD, Appellant (Complainant below), v. SHERIDAN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Appellee (Respondent below).

No. 4443.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Jan. 12, 1976.

Donald L. Painter, Casper, for appellant.

Rex O. Arney and Tom C. Toner, Redle, Yonkee & Arney, Sheridan, for appellee.

David B. Kennedy, Atty. Gen., and H. J. Arnieri, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cheyenne, for Fair Employment Commission, amicus curiae.

Before GUTHRIE, C. J., and and McCLINTOCK and THOMAS, JJ.

McCLINTOCK, Justice.

Mary P. Shenefield, ¹ disappointed applicant for a teaching position with the Sheridan County School District No. 1, appeals from the decision of the district court of Sheridan County reversing the order of the Wyoming Fair Employment Commission. The Commission, after holding hearing upon the complaint of Mrs. Shenefield that she had been discriminated against in the award of the teaching position, entered its decision and order containing findings that the complainant had been discriminated against and had sustained damages as the direct result of this discrimination. The Board was therefore ordered to cease its discrimination against Mrs. Shenefield and to cease and desist from any and all discriminatory practices designed to deny employment because of any person's sex. $1,832, representing difference in salary between the position sought and one later obtained in another district, moving and living expenses, and attorney fees, was also 'awarded to the complainant.'

The matter was presented to the district court upon the record which had been made before the Commission. That court reviewed the transcript, listened to argument of counsel, and considered briefs which had been submitted in behalf of the contesting parties. A memorandum opinion was thereafter issued concluding that the Commission's actions were not supported by substantial evidence of discrimination because of sex and that the decision should be reversed. Order was thereupon entered reversing the Commission's decision in all respects and this appeal followed. We find no error in the action of the district court and affirm.

The first finding of the Commission is that 'Mary P. Shenefield has been discriminated against * * *' by the Board. In Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Wyo., 446 P.2d 550 (1968) this court expressed strong disapproval of so-called findings which were merely statements of the ultimate facts or conclusions of the administrative agency. Notwithstanding this clear expression, administrative agencies continue to make purported findings that in no way comply with statutory mandates and directives of this court. The finding that complainant had been discriminated against is in no way a finding of fact but represents only the conclusion of the Commission upon the merits of the case. It is therefore necessary for us to determine if the other findings of the Commission are sufficient to sustain this conclusion and if so, whether they are supported by substantial evidence ² as that term has been defined by this court.

In addition to this objectionable finding of discrimination the Commission found in pertinent part that complainant is a female holding degrees of A.A. from Western College for Women, B.S. (in education) from Bowling Green University, and M.A. from Carnegie Institute; that she had been certified by the Wyoming State Board of Education as being qualified to teach English and Speech; that she applied for a position with the district in April of 1972, and at that time discussed the position with the principal of the high school maintained by the district; that the principal at that time indicated his preference to fill the position with a man; that he had described the duties as teaching English and Speech, with some possible additional Drama duties in grades nine through twelve; that the position had been advertised through the University of Wyoming Placement Service as one involving secondary english; that complainant again contacted the principal of the school on May 23, 1972 and was again advised that he preferred a man for the position, giving as the reason therefor that there were very few men on the high school faculty at that time; that on May 31, 1972 she called the superintendent of the district and was advised that the position had been filled by the appointment of a Mr. Albert Scherry, a male applicant who had been a student teacher at the school during the previous school year.

The Commission also found that the school district 'gave testimony' ³ that complainant was not hired ⁴ because she could not coach intramural or interschool sports, because she would have had to commute from Buffalo, and because she required a higher salary because of her qualifications, but that the additional requirement of coaching was added between the time of advertisement for the position and the time that the district hired Mr. Scherry. It is also found that at no time was there any discussion between complainant and the superintendent or the Board concerning her commuting from Buffalo, her prior experience in other school systems, coaching sports, or the higher salary required.

The Commission found that the position for which complainant applied carried an annual salary of $9,310. The Commission did not find, but the evidence clearly shows, that this was the established base salary for a person of the complainant's education and experience and had she been hired it would have been incumbent upon the Board to pay that salary plus any additional compensation that might have been required for additional duties. It also shows that the man who was hired, a newly graduated teacher with only a B.S. degree, had been a student teacher in the Big Horn school district the year before his employment, had been well liked as a student teacher, was highly recommended by his two supervising teachers, had directed a play, and had assisted in coaching the basketball team. Furthermore, since he did not possess the degrees and experience of the complainant he could be properly employed and was employed at a base annual salary of $6,650. ⁵

Although not specially noted or discussed in the Commission's findings, the high school principal, with whom the complainant had talked and who had a responsible say in the recommendations to the Board, testified that he had received some 20 applications for the position, about 60% of them from women, that the district would have had to pay Mrs. Shenefield $9,310, and that in her application she indicated that she would want a salary of $10,250. He testified that he had not discriminated against complainant because of her sex, but had considered the following factors: (1) she lived in Buffalo and would have had to commute to Big Horn; (2) she had held several positions and he felt that she probably followed her husband when he changed jobs; (3) she expected to receive a salary of $10,250 and if hired would have required a starting salary of at least $9,310; (4) she was incapable of performing coaching duties and teachers were needed for that purpose; (5) he found complainant to be a 'pushy demanding type of person.' With respect to Scherry, he said he was hired because of 'my knowledge of having had him as a student teacher in our system, the knowledge of knowing the kind of job he would do, and how his personality would fit the total system, and how he would get along with other teachers.'

Appellant strongly urges upon this court the proposition that the district court has itself examined the evidence and redecided the case without regard to the decision of the Commission and in excess of the limits upon judicial review of administrative action imposed by the Administrative Procedure Act (§ 9-276.19 et seq., W.S.1957, 1975 Cum.Supp.). ⁶ This court has consistently recognized the importance of administrative boards and their decisions. It has adhered to the rule...