Sims v. Board of Trustees, Holly Springs, Mun. Separate School Dist., 53236
| Decision Date | 26 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 53236,53236 |
| Citation | 414 So.2d 431 |
| Parties | 4 Ed. Law Rep. 933 Lizzie SIMS v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, HOLLY SPRINGS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICT. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Mayfield & Smith, C. Emanuel Smith, Tupelo, for appellant.
Crutcher, Spencer & Brown, William C. Spencer, Holly Springs, for appellee.
Before PATTERSON, C. J., and BROOM and DARDEN, JJ.
DARDEN, Justice, for the Court:
This is an appeal from the Chancery Court of Marshall County affirming the action of the trustees of the Holly Springs Municipal Separate School District in terminating a teaching contract of appellant under Mississippi Code Annotated section 37-9-59 (Supp.1981). We affirm.
Appellant had taught in the Holly Springs Elementary School System for eleven years. In the spring of 1979 the preparation of the Uniform Teaching Contract was delayed beyond the April date provided for in Mississippi Code Annotated section 37-9-17 (Supp.1981) due to uncertainty in reference to the minimum education program. However, the teachers, including appellant, were timely notified by letter that they would be reemployed for the coming school year.
At that time the superintendent was preparing a new policy manual. He asked the trustees to permit him to attach certain segments of the manual in what is called an attachment to the Uniform Contract of Employment for teachers provided for in Mississippi Code Annotated section 37-9-23 (Supp.1981). His reason was that he wanted to be sure there would be no misunderstanding about the provisions of the new manual excerpts which were set out in the attachment. Additionally, the attachment provided that the teacher had checked the salary figures in the standard contract and found them correct. The trustees approved the superintendent's request in May.
In August, before the school opened, the superintendent spoke to all the teachers and explained the meaning and purpose of the contract attachment. All of the teachers signed the uniform contract, paragraph 3 of which provided:
3. That said person agrees and obligates himself to perform such duties as required by law and such additional duties as may be prescribed under duly adopted policies, rules and regulations of the Board of Trustees of the district; provided however said employee shall be entitled at his request to a written copy of said policies, rules and regulations.
All of the teachers signed the attachment to the contract except the appellant. The superintendent requested her on several occasions to sign the attachment but she refused to do so. He then wrote her a letter telling her that if the supplement was not signed by her within a given period of time he would recommend that she be dismissed for insubordination. She still refused.
When the superintendent made his recommendation that appellant be discharged she asked for a hearing under the provisions of Mississippi Code Annotated section 37-9-111 (Supp.1981). A hearing was set and held before a hearing officer provided for in that section of the school law. On the hearing a considerable amount of testimony was offered by the school superintendent in regard to the uncooperative attitude of the appellant and of the problems that had been encountered by the administration in dealing with her over the past few years. Among other matters that were dealt with at some length at the hearing was the failure on the part of the appellant to properly gather and account for instructional materials which are referred to as Title IV-C materials. Additionally, the matter of the refusal of appellant to execute the attachment to the employment contract was dealt with at considerable length at the hearing.
It developed that the appellant had been charged with responsibility for the acquisition of some several thousand dollars worth of the Title IV-C instructional material and that at the end of the school year these had not been properly gathered or accounted for although some four or five requests were made of her to accomplish the proper disposition and handling of the materials involved. There was a writeup by the principal of the school in connection with the conferences that he held with the appellant in connection with the matter and she made certain written responses to the report that he formulated. Somewhat typical of the responses that the appellant made to the principal, in her written notations on the conference report, include the following:
On these occasions you were to pick up the materials. All of it was right there in your face. You stated I've blacked out T IV C and wrote my name on it, as I told you the very first time my own materials had been marked T IV C through mistake. I don't want this material. You act as if I can eat it or something.
....
If you were a man enough to run this school like a concerned principal and stop letting two or three white females dictate to you, you will find it to be much easier and conducive for the school's situation.
Appellant's testimony at the hearing was to the effect that she had properly boxed up all of the materials; that some of the Title IV-C material which had had that notation blacked out and her name or initials placed on it was her own and that it had been mislabeled in the first instance, and that all of the material had been turned in to the principal.
It developed, however, that certain of the Title IV-C materials were discovered by the principal unaccounted for and in improper places in and about the appellant's room after the close or about the time of the close of school in the late spring of 1980.
In respect to her failure and refusal to sign the attachment to the employment contract the appellant testified at the hearing as follows:
Q. Mrs. Sims, you did state a few minutes ago that you agreed that you were going to be bound by all school policies, is that correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Hasn't it come to you [sic] attention that this is part of school policy?
A. It is a part of school policy.
Q. Did you check to see whether it was school policy at the time you refused to sign it?
A. No, I didn't. On the day of receiving this contract along with the attachment, meeting with Dr. Shelton and the teachers of the primary school system, we were not given any type reason as to why we should sign the attachment. There was never a statement given us that if we did not sign it, it would lead to the termination of our position....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. Vancouver School Dist. No. 37
...the reasonable rules and regulations of the board of education." Stastny, 32 Wash.App. at 247, 647 P.2d 496. See Sims v. Board of Trustees, 414 So.2d 431, 435 (Miss.1982); Annot., What Constitutes "Insubordination" as Ground for Dismissal of Public School Teacher, 78 A.L.R.3d 83, § 3 at 90 ......
-
Mississippi Employment Sec. Com'n v. McGlothin
...959, 963 (Miss.1986); Noxubee County Board of Education v. Givens, 481 So.2d 816, 819 (Miss.1985); Sims v. Holly Springs Municipal Separate School District, 414 So.2d 431, 435 (Miss.1982). Insubordination is misconduct within the Mississippi Employment Security Law, ordinarily adequate that......
-
Ware v. Morgan County School Dist. No. RE-3
...or persistent course of willful defiance. E.g., Ray v. Minneapolis Bd. of Educ., 295 Minn. 13, 202 N.W.2d 375 (1972); Sims v. Board of Trustees, 414 So.2d 431 (Miss.1982); Clarke v. Board of Educ., 105 A.D.2d 893, 482 N.Y.S.2d 80 (1984); Board of Trustees v. Holso, 584 P.2d 1009 (Wyo.1978).......
-
Hoffman v. Board of Trustees, East Mississippi Junior College
...959, 963 (Miss.1986); Noxubee County Board of Education v. Givens, 481 So.2d 816, 819 (Miss.1985); Sims v. Holly Springs Municipal Separate School District, 414 So.2d 431, 435 (Miss.1982). State law vests in the president the power to "remove or suspend any member of the faculty subject to ......