Smith v. Board of Educ. of Logan County

• Decision Date: 17 December 1985
• Docket Number: No. 16761,16761
• Citation: 176 W.Va. 65,341 S.E.2d 685
• Parties: , 31 Ed. Law Rep. 614 Lacy SMITH v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the COUNTY OF LOGAN, etc., et al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Page 685

341 S.E.2d 685

176 W.Va. 65, 31 Ed. Law Rep. 614

Lacy SMITH v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the COUNTY OF LOGAN, etc., et al.

No. 16761.

Supreme Court of Appeals of

West Virginia.

Dec. 17, 1985.

Dissenting Opinion Dec. 19, 1985.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1986.

Syllabus by the Court

1. "School personnel regulations and laws are to be strictly construed in favor of the employee." Syl. pt. 1, Morgan v. Pizzino, 163 W.Va. 454, 256 S.E.2d 592 (1979).

2. The procedural requirements mandated under West Virginia Code § 18A-2-7 (1984 Replacement Vol.) and West Virginia Code § 18A-2-8 (Supp.1985), clearly apply, by the unqualified terms used therein, to all school personnel positions. Accordingly, it follows that school board actions relating to contracts entered into pursuant to West Virginia Code § 18A-4-16 (1984 Replacement Vol.) are not exempt from such requirements.

3. "Interpretations of statutes by bodies charged with their administration are given great weight unless clearly erroneous." Syl. pt. 4, Security National Bank & Trust Company v. First W. Va. Bancorp, Inc., 166 W.Va. 775, 277 S.E.2d 613 (1981).

Noone, Bradley J. Pyles, Crandall, Pyles & Crandall, Logan, for appellant.

Rober L. Perry, Pros. Atty., Logan, for appellees.

McGRAW, Justice:

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Logan County entered on June 11, 1985. The appellant herein, by petition for a writ of certiorai, sought review of a decision of the Logan County Board of Education dismissing the appellant from his position as head football coach at Logan High School. The petition was submitted for decision on the basis of certain stipulated facts and supplemental testimony taken before the circuit court. The circuit court subsequently upheld the action of the Board and dismissed the petition. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the circuit court.

The material facts in this case are undisputed. The appellant, Lacy L. Smith, has been employed by the Logan County Board of Education (hereinafter "the Board") as a teacher since 1943. Since 1961, his teaching assignment has been with Logan High School.

Additionally, the appellant has served as head football coach at Logan High School for five years, from 1980 through 1985. ¹ During the first four of those years, there was no written contract with respect to the appellant's coaching duties. Pursuant to recently enacted West Virginia Code § 18A-4-16 (1984 Replacement Vol.), ² which, inter alia, requires the use of separate written contracts (independent of the teaching contract) for extracurricular assignments, the Board and the appellant entered into a written contract for his coaching assignment for the 1984-85 school year. He was paid for his coaching duties all five years at the standard county rate for head coaches of one month's additional salary plus eight hundred dollars.

On February 28, 1985, the Board voted not to renew the appellant's coaching contract for the 1985-86 school year. ³ No prior notice was given to the appellant concerning this action. It appears that he first learned of the action after it happened, in the local newspaper. One month later, by letter dated March 27, 1985, the county superintendent officially advised the appellant that the Board had dismissed him. ⁴ No explanation for the action was given. In summary, the appellant received no advance notice of any proposed dismissal or nonrenewal, and no statement of reasons for the decision either prior to or subsequent to the Board's action.

Additionally, the record indicates that the appellant had never been reprimanded or otherwise disciplined for any reason prior to the decision of the Board. Furthermore, the Board did not present, at the circuit court hearing below, any prior written warnings or evaluations concerning the appellant's performance under his coaching contract. To the contrary, the record indicates that no evaluations were done, and that the appellant had never been advised of any deficiencies in his job performance or been given the opportunity to correct any perceived problems prior to the Board's action. ⁵

The appellant assigns several points of error to the circuit court's decision upholding the action of the Board. The essence of most of these assignments is that the circuit court erred in concluding that the procedural protections afforded under certain constitutional, statutory, and school policy provisions were not applicable to the appellant's extracurricular contract. Additionally, the appellant maintains that, irrespective of the applicability of these provisions, the circuit court erred in determining that the Board's action was supported by the evidence and not an arbitrary and capricious decision.

At the heart of the dispute in the instant case is West Virginia Code § 18A-4-16 (1984 Replacement Vol.). This recently enacted statute provides in subsection (1) that "assignment of teachers and service personnel to extracurricular assignments shall be made only by mutual agreement of the employee and the superintendent...." Subsection (4) further provides that the "employee's contract of employment [i.e. regular teaching or service contract] shall be separate from the extracurricular assignment agreement provided for in this section and shall not be conditioned upon the employee's acceptance or continuance of any extracurricular assignment proposed by the superintendent...." ⁶ The Board's position in the instant case, found persuasive by the circuit court below, is that this "separate contract" statute manifests a legislative intent that coaching and other extracurricular positions are not to be subject to the procedural rights afforded under regular teaching and service contracts with regard to dismissal or transfer. We disagree.

No part of West Virginia Code § 18A-4-16 (1984 Replacement Vol.), indicates that the legislature intended to exempt those persons assuming duty for extracurricular activities from the protections generally attached to all other school personnel positions. To the contrary, this statute was obviously enacted in response to this Court's decision in State ex rel. Hawkins v. Tyler County Board of Education, 166 W.Va. 363, 275 S.E.2d 908 (1980). The issues presented in Hawkin § highlighted the sometimes burdensome expectations placed upon those teachers who are also qualified to coach. Nothing in the "separate contract" statute operates to deprive teacher-coaches of their procedural employment rights. The statute's intended purpose was to grant them additional protection by mandating that school boards could not assign teachers to coaching duties without their express consent, and more importantly, could not condition their teaching employment upon acceptance or continuation of coaching duties.

"School personnel regulations and laws are to be strictly construed in favor of the employee." Syl., Hedrick v. Board of Education, 175 W.Va. 148, 332 S.E.2d 109 (1985); Syl. pt. 2, Wren v. McDowell County Board of Education, 174 W.Va. 484, 327 S.E.2d 464 (1985); Syl. pt. 2, Wilt v. Flanigan, 170 W.Va. 385, 294 S.E.2d 189 (1982); Syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Wilson v. Truby, 167 W.Va. 179, 281 S.E.2d 231 (1981); Syl. pt. 1, Wayne County Board of Education v. Tooley, 166 W.Va. 685, 276 S.E.2d 826 (1981); Syl. pt. 1, Morgan v. Pizzino, 163 W.Va. 454, 256 S.E.2d 592 (1979). The procedural requirements mandated under West Virginia Code § 18A-2-7 (1984 Replacement Vol.) ⁷ and West Virginia Code § 18A-2-8 (Supp.1985), ⁸ clearly apply, by the unqualified terms used therein, to all school personnel positions. Accordingly, it follows that school board actions relating to contracts entered into pursuant to West Virginia Code § 18A-4-16 (1984 Replacement Vol.) are not exempt from such requirements.

Next, it must be determined what procedural requirements are applicable to the appellant's case. The State Constitution places supervision of the public schools upon the State Board of Education, and designates the State Superintendent as the "chief school officer" with such powers and duties as may be prescribed by law. West Virginia Constitution, art. XII, § 2; see also West Virginia Code § 18-3-3 (1984 Replacement Vol.); Jones v. Board of Education, 170 W.Va. 310, 294 S.E.2d 113, 114 (1982). In this regard, the State Superintendent is charged by statute with the authority to interpret the laws and regulations pertaining to schools. See West Virginia Code § 18-3-6 (1984 Replacement Vol.). Additionally, under former grievance procedures the State Superintendent was the ultimate administrative arbiter of disputes between local boards and their employees. ⁹

The State Superintendent has consistently held that a school board's refusal to renew a teacher's coaching position must be considered a transfer subject to the procedural protections of West Virginia Code § 18A-2-7 (1984 Replacement Vol.). See, e.g., Hosaflook v. Nestor, (State Superintendent of Schools Decision, May 14, 1985); Smith v. Frazier, (State Superintendent of Schools Decision, June 1, 1984). ¹⁰ The Superintendent has determined that failure to follow these procedures when choosing not to renew a coaching contract will result in automatic reassignment to the same position for the following year under the same terms and conditions of the current contract. "Interpretations of statutes by bodies charged with their administration are given great weight unless clearly erroneous." Syl. pt. 4, Security National Bank & Trust Company v. First W. Va. Bancorp, Inc., 166 W.Va. 775, 277 S.E.2d 613 (1981), appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 1131, 102 S.Ct. 986, 71 L.Ed.2d 284 (1982). See also Syl.Pt. 8, Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975); Syl. pt. 7, Evans v. Hutchinson, 158 W.Va. 359, 214 S.E.2d 453 (1975). We find no reason to disagree with the Superintendent's interpretation of the law in cases similar to this one.

In Morgan v. Pizzino, ...