Spurlock v. Board of Trustees, Carbon County School Dist. No. 1, 84-66

Decision Date02 May 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-66,84-66
Citation699 P.2d 270
Parties25 Ed. Law Rep. 577 W. Nyles SPURLOCK, Appellant (Appellant-Petitioner), v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, CARBON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, State of Wyoming, Appellee (Appellee-Respondent).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

C.M. Aron and Sid L. Moller, of Aron and Hennig, Laramie, for appellant.

John A. MacPherson and Catherine MacPherson, of Johnson, MacPherson & Noecker, Rawlins, for appellee.

Before THOMAS, C.J., and ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.

ROONEY, Justice.

Appellant appeals from a decision of the district court which affirmed the decision of appellee to discharge appellant from the position of principal of Morrow School in Baggs, Wyoming, and from his teaching position in the school district.

We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Appellant words the issues on appeal as follows:

"A. Whether a school principal, who was initially employed as a classroom teacher, retains tenure rights under the Wyoming Teacher Employment Law once he accepts a principal's position? If so, then in the circumstances of this case,

"(1) Whether the Appellant was afforded procedural due process by the Board of Trustees when it denied Appellant's claim for reinstatement as a classroom teacher; and/or

"(2) Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Board's decision that the Appellant was unfit to return to classroom teaching?

"B. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Appellant's dismissal as a principal?"

Appellant was employed by appellee as a classroom teacher during the school years of 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. He was offered and signed a classroom-teacher contract for the school year 1973-74, but was later appointed principal of the Morrow School at Baggs, Wyoming, by appellee for that school year. He held that position for nine years, until he was terminated after the 1981-82 school year.

Bruce Harvey was employed by appellee as a classroom teacher at the Morrow School for the school year 1981-82, and his wife, Susan, was there employed by appellee as a part-time classroom teacher for the same school year. The teaching contracts for the Harveys were not renewed for the 1982-83 school year.

A few weeks before the end of the 1981-82 school year, on May 5, 1982, the Harveys and appellant had a confrontation for which incident appellant was discharged. The nature of the confrontation will be more detailed infra.

DISCHARGE FROM POSITION AS PRINCIPAL

We need not consider whether or not appellant received proper notice of a hearing in connection with the discharge from the position as principal, or whether or not sufficient evidence was presented for such discharge at the hearing, inasmuch as appellant's position as principal was not a tenured position and appellee had no obligation to renew appellant's contract as a principal for the 1982-83 school year. We settled this issue in Seyfang v. Board of Trustees of Washakie County School District No. 1, Wyo., 563 P.2d 1376 (1977). It would serve little purpose to here repeat the rationale there set forth. We only note that we carefully analyzed the language of the Wyoming Teacher Employment Law, § 21-7-101 et seq., W.S.1977, and the legislative intent thereof to conclude that tenure afforded for the classroom teacher position or its equivalent was not likewise afforded for administrative or supervisory positions. We said at page 1381:

"Even the applicability provision of the act refers to the function of teaching, not supervising. This separation of functions is emphasized by the certification provisions, § 21.1-14(c), supra, [now § 21-2-304(a)(iii), W.S.1977] which clearly distinguish the qualifications for teaching and administrating, even though one must be a teacher to be an administrator."

Appellant attempts to distinguish the Seyfang case from this case in that Mr. Seyfang was a superintendent and appellant was a principal. The rationale and analysis scrivened by Justice Rose in Seyfang is equally applicable to both positions. Both positions are included in that which is commonly referred to as "management." The Wyoming Teacher Employment Law does not grant tenure to the position of principal, and appellee was not prevented by the act from refusing to renew appellant's contract as principal.

DISCHARGE FROM TEACHING POSITION

However, the Wyoming Teacher Employment Law is specific in granting tenure to a classroom teacher who has

" * * * been employed by the same school district in the state of Wyoming for a period of three (3) consecutive school years, and has had his contract renewed for a fourth consecutive school year." Section 21-7-102(a)(ii)(A), W.S.1977.

As noted, there is a distinction between the ability to obtain tenure for a teaching position and the ability to do so for an administrative position. There may also be a distinction between the ability to maintain tenure status in a teaching position when one later assumes an administrative position and the ability to obtain a tenure status in a teaching position by virtue of time spent in an administrative position. We do not here have to consider the latter inasmuch as appellant qualified for tenure as a classroom teacher under the portion of § 21-7-102(a)(ii)(A) quoted supra before he assumed the position as principal.

Appellee contends that appellant lost this tenure when he became a principal. We cannot agree. If appellee were correct, there would be a simple procedure to circumvent a teacher's tenure: make him a principal and then discharge him. It is desirable--and even important--to have people with extensive classroom teaching experience in administrative positions. It would be difficult to fill administrative positions with experienced teachers if the teachers would have to give up tenure upon accepting administrative positions.

Appellant became tenured as a teacher pursuant to the provisions of the Wyoming Teacher Employment Law. His continued employment as a certified professional employee did not change his tenured position as a classroom teacher. There is nothing in the act to reflect that such a change should occur. Accordingly, appellee had to afford appellant the procedural and evidentiary standards incident to a tenured classroom teacher position before it could discharge appellant from such position.

The incident which gave rise to the confrontation between appellant and the Harveys began with a letter to the editor of a local newspaper written by Bruce Harvey concerning appellant. The letter angered appellant, and he confronted the Harveys in one of the classrooms after the Harveys' working hours. The Harveys had gathered up some books to take home when appellant appeared and stood in the only doorway to the classroom. Bruce Harvey asked appellant if he could help him and appellant said "I don't know, can you?" From this mild start, the conversation became more acrimonious.

Susan Harvey and Bruce Harvey testified separately that appellant blocked the doorway to the room, and that when Bruce asked him to get out of the way, appellant said, "don't touch me." The Harveys then went to some desks in the room and sat down. Susan Harvey said that physical contact between Bruce Harvey and appellant did not occur. Bruce Harvey also said he did not recall any physical contact. The Harveys testified that the letter to the editor was discussed. They testified appellant accused Bruce Harvey of calling him a sex fiend, but that appellant said Bruce Harvey was the sex fiend, having married a woman half his age. They testified that appellant said they had better leave town as soon as school was out and that he was going to sue them and put a lien on their house. They testified that Bruce Harvey told appellant he was crazy and sick and needed help. Susan Harvey testified that appellant was shouting, and Bruce Harvey testified that appellant was loud and aggressive. They both testified that when they left the classroom and were in the hall, Bruce Harvey said to Susan Harvey, within hearing distance of appellant, "do you think the letter got to him," whereupon appellant said he would shoot them and that the shooting would be torture. Bruce Harvey said, "I believe you," and the incident ended. Bruce Harvey testified that during the incident he supposed he "was trying to needle Spurlock a little bit, and that's what I regretted later on because it wasn't a mature thing to do," that "I guess I was trying to get at him a little bit," and that he regretted losing his temper and "getting louder than usual" during the confrontation. Bruce Harvey testified that he believed it was "abnormal for a school administrator to react in such a fashion," and Susan Harvey testified that she considered appellant's language to be "very unprofessional." The Harveys estimated the confrontation to have lasted 10 to 15 minutes.

Appellant testified that he went to the room in an effort to persuade the Harveys to "back off" in their animosity toward him, but it "blew up" on him. He testified that Bruce Harvey said it was 4:00 o'clock and he was going home, and that Bruce Harvey pushed him on the shoulder. Appellant said "Bruce, don't lay another hand on me," whereupon Bruce said they didn't have to listen and both Harveys went to the desks and sat down. He testified that the letter to the editor was discussed, that Bruce Harvey accused him of being sick and crazy and having been run out of Georgia, and that he accused the Harveys of calling him a sex fiend. He testified that he told Bruce Harvey that if anyone was "kinky" he was for marrying a woman half his age. He acknowledged threatening to sue the Harveys after the school year ended and denied that he told them to leave town. When Bruce Harvey said he wanted to go home, appellant testified that he said "fine" and left the room. He testified that after they went into the hall Bruce Harvey said "I got to him. That letter got to him that time," and when appellant turned around, Bruce Harvey said, "you're...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Spurlock v. Ely
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • October 17, 1985
    ...altercation with two teachers on May 5, 1982. The details of this incident are fully set forth in Spurlock v. Board of Trustees, Carbon County School District No. 1, Wyo., 699 P.2d 270 (1985). A separate proceeding before the board based on this incident was initiated on May 27, 1982. A hea......
  • Mirich v. State ex rel. Bd. of Trs. of Laramie Cnty. Sch. Dist. Two
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • February 18, 2021
    ...ability and fitness to teach and discharge the duties of his or her position." Id. ; see also Spurlock v. Bd. of Trustees, Carbon Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 699 P.2d 270, 275–76 (Wyo. 1985) (affirming as to dismissal from the position of principal but reversing as to dismissal from the positio......
  • Doidge v. State, Bd. of Charities and Reform, 89-152
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1990
    ...with the plain meaning of the rules. Instead, Doidge argues that this case is analogous to Spurlock v. Board of Trustees, Carbon County School District No. 1, 699 P.2d 270 (Wyo.1985). In that case, this Court held that a school principal who was a tenured teacher before he became a principa......
  • Khan v. Del. State Univ. & Noureddine Melikechi
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • June 24, 2016
    ...LLC, 2011 WL 2184180, at *9 (Del. Super. May 31, 2011); Smith v. Berwin Builders, Inc., 287 A.2d 693, 695 (Del. Super. 1972). 68. 699 P.2d 270, 276 (Wyo. 1985) (quoting Monahan v. Bd. of Trustees, 486 P.2d 235, 237 (Wyo. 1971)). 69. 588 A.2d 352 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1991). 70. Pl.'s Resp. Br......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT