Skidmore v. Shamrock Independent School District, 71-2841.
| Decision Date | 27 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2841.,71-2841. |
| Parties | June SKIDMORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHAMROCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Frank Hill, Harris, Ball, Graham & Hill, Arlington, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
Thurman Adkins, Shamrock, Tex., Lane & Douglass, Don R. Lane, Pampa, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Mrs. June Skidmore appeals from the dismissal of her complaint, alleging an abridgment of procedural and substantive due process rights in the non-renewal of her employment as a school teacher. For reasons different from those assigned by the court below, we affirm.
The plaintiff-appellant, Mrs. Skidmore, had been employed as a classroom instructor by the Shamrock Independent School District for 22 successive one-year terms. Without any statement of reasons, she was not offered a 23rd annual contract. Upon Mrs. Skidmore's demand to know why she had not been retained, the School Board agreed to meet with her. Both sides had attorneys present and the secretary for Mrs. Skidmore's attorney recorded the proceedings. This transcript reveals that the individual Board members present spoke of their part in the decision not to rehire her only in vague generalities and expressly refused to divulge whether they had acted on the basis of any specific information of ineptness, inefficiency or wrongdoing on her part.
The opinion of the court below assumed for the purpose of acting on the motion to dismiss, that Mrs. Skidmore had an expectancy of reemployment as that term was used in our opinions in Ferguson v. Thomas, 430 F.2d 852, 855 (5th Cir. 1970), and Lucas v. Chapman, 430 F.2d 945 (5th Cir. 1970). See also Sindermann v. Perry, 430 F.2d 939 (5th Cir. 1970). The dismissal was based upon the court's determination that the State of Texas provided a review procedure for teachers situated as was Mrs. Skidmore which would comport with constitutional due process requirements, which Mrs. Skidmore had deliberately failed to pursue.
The relevant teacher tenure policy of the Shamrock Independent School District is emphatically precise.
"Tenure: All school employees shall be employed for a school term; . . . ."
Mrs. Skidmore made no assertion whatsoever that she had any legitimate claim of entitlement to job tenure, nor did she allege the existence of rules or understandings promulgated or fostered by state officials which would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roane v. Callisburg Independent School Dist.
...prior to his dismissal. 5 Robinson v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 485 F.2d 1381 (5th Cir. 1973); Skidmore v. Shamrock Ind. School District, 464 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1972). Absent some legislative or constitutional provision or some type of contractual or de facto tenure arrangement, ......
-
North Cent. Texas College v. Ledbetter, Case No. 4:04-CV-133.
...547 (5th Cir.1982) (same); Bradford v. Tarrant County Junior Coll. Dist., 492 F.2d 133 (5th Cir.1974) (same); Skidmore v. Shamrock Indep. Sch. Dist, 464 F.2d 605 (5th Cir.1972) (same); Singh v. Lamar Univ., 635 F.Supp. 737 (E.D.Tex.1986) (same); La Verne v. Univ. of Tex., 611 F.Supp. 66 (S.......
-
National Ed. Ass'n, Inc. v. LEE COUNTY BD. OF PUBLIC INSTR.
...of Regents v. Roth, 1972, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L. Ed.2d 548 1972; Sindermann v. Perry, supra; Skidmore v. Shamrock Independent School District, 5 Cir., 1972, 464 F.2d 605 1972. Absent the invasion of some protected Fourteenth Amendment right, neither notice nor hearing is The sam......
-
Vineyard Investments Llc v. the City of Madison
...where there is “a legitimate claim to entitlement” as opposed to a mere subjective expectancy. See Skidmore v. Shamrock Independent School Dist., 464 F.2d 605, 606 (5th Cir.1972) (citing Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972)). “A claim to entitlement arises......