Staton v. Mayes

• Decision Date: 09 May 1977
• Docket Number: No. 75-1332,75-1332
• Parties: Jon Tom STATON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James K. MAYES et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Page 908

552 F.2d 908

Jon Tom STATON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James K. MAYES et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 75-1332.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Argued Jan. 28, 1976.

Decided Feb. 15, 1977.

As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

April 11, 1977.

As Amended on Denial of Rehearing May 9, 1977. ^*

Kay Wilson, Jr., Muskogee, Okl., for plaintiff-appellant.

Andrew Wilcoxen, Muskogee, Okl. (Bruce Green, Pearson & Green, Muskogee, Okl., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before HOLLOWAY, BARRETT and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.

HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge.

This civil rights suit challenges the dismissal of plaintiff, Dr. Staton, as superintendent of Independent School District No. 20 of Muskogee County, Oklahoma, which is For some time before the dismissal, defendant Moore had voted against renewing plaintiff's contract. Defendant Wade had also voted once not to renew. However, they were outvoted and plaintiff had been continued as superintendent. Shortly before a school board election in January, 1973, a board majority voted for a renewal again and a contract with plaintiff extending to June 30, 1974, was approved.

named a defendant. Defendants Mayes, Wade and Moore were three members of the five-member board who caused the dismissal in February, 1973, following a hearing on charges of willful neglect of duty and incompetence. In April, 1973, this suit was brought alleging denial of due process and seeking reinstatement, expungement of the board's action, damages and other relief. After an evidentiary hearing the trial court rejected the constitutional claims and dismissed the action, and this appeal followed.

In his election campaign defendant Mayes stated he would vote for a change in superintendent. He was elected and then took office on February 5, 1973, when the board met and organized. At that same meeting, the board voted a proposed dismissal of plaintiff. A letter was sent to Dr. Staton the next day notifying him of the proposed dismissal on grounds of willful neglect of duty and incompetence, and of a hearing scheduled on February 19. ¹

Dr. Staton appeared at the hearing with counsel and 12 witnesses. After the first witness called by the board to support the charges was sworn, but before he began to testify, plaintiff's attorney objected to the introduction of any testimony, challenging the proceedings on several grounds. ² The board heard the objections but went forward with the hearing, which Dr. Staton had transcribed. ³

The hearing was conducted on the evenings of February 19 and 20. On February 22 at a third session, defendants Mayes, Moore and Wade voted to dismiss Dr. Staton effective March 15, with suspension of all his authority to continue until that date. Board member Matthews voted not to dismiss plaintiff and Mrs. Chandler was absent. The board's action was reflected as a part of its minutes. ⁴ There were no further written or oral statements of findings on the dismissal.

Although several grounds were alleged as the basis of the civil rights complaint, the court trial was confined to two issues, adequacy of notice of the hearing and alleged bias by the board. The trial court's memorandum opinion found against plaintiff on both grounds and dismissed. On appeal plaintiff makes these principal arguments, claiming denial of procedural due process: (1) the notice gave no specifics of the acts or deficiencies considered to amount to willful neglect of duty or incompetence, nor any of the adverse witnesses; and (2) the board majority causing the dismissal had made public statements or private commitments against plaintiff, showing a biased tribunal. Plaintiff argues that the adverse testimony established no incompetence or willful neglect of duty and that it dealt only with vague terms such as "disharmony." He says that any "disharmony" was only reaction to an integration system, a teacher evaluation program and an annexation plan, all of which the board had ordered Dr. Staton to implement. Plaintiff also argues there were no findings by the board after its hearing and no adequate findings by the trial court on the issues before it. (Brief of Appellant, 15-16, 21, 30, 37).

The right to procedural due process

As the predicate for his procedural due process claim, plaintiff argues that he had a property interest by virtue of his contracts that had been renewed to extend to June 30, 1974, at $25,000 per year, with 15/12 years remaining (Brief of Appellant, 15). And he asserts that he had a deprivation of liberty and property by the stigma of being branded incompetent and guilty of willful neglect of duty.

We must agree with both contentions. ⁵ Plaintiff had a legitimate claim of entitlement to his position derived from his contracts. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548. Moreover, this was a proposed dismissal of a professional officer by a public body for willful neglect of duty and incompetence. These charges were made publicly and might seriously damage plaintiff's standing and associations in his community and affect his good name and reputation. ⁶ See id. at 573, 92 S.Ct. 2701; Wellner v. Minnesota State Junior College Board, 487 F.2d 153, 155-56 (8th Cir.); Huntley v. Community School Board of Brooklyn, 543 F.2d 979, 985 (2d Cir.). Dismissal on such grounds would likely have serious effect on his ability to take advantage of other employment, ⁷ see Powers v. Mancos School District, 539 F.2d 38, 43 (10th Cir.), there being no mere private communication of the grounds for discharge as in Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 347-348, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 2079, 48 L.Ed.2d 684.

We are convinced that the procedural due process guarantee applied to insure the plaintiff fundamentally fair procedures in connection with these proceedings concerning his proposed discharge.

Adequacy of the notice

Plaintiff argues that the mere notice of charges of incompetence and willful neglect At a minimum, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required notice and an opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case before deprivation of the liberty or property interests of plaintiff which have been identified. See Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 573, 576 n. 15, 92 S.Ct. 2701; Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 579, 581, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725. These basic requirements must be determined with consideration of both the nature of the state function involved as well as of the private interests affected by the governmental action. Cafeteria and Restaurant Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 895, 81 S.Ct. 1743, 6 L.Ed.2d 1230. And in connection with possible judicial interposition in cases like this, we must be mindful of the commitment in our Nation of public education to the control of state and local authorities. Goss v. Lopez, supra, 418 U.S. at 578, 95 S.Ct. 729.

of duty, without specificity as to acts or deficiencies alleged, and without naming adverse witnesses, amounted to a denial of due process (Brief of Appellant, 15, 28).

The trial court rejected the argument on lack of adequate notice, pointing to the use in the letter of the statutory terms of grounds for dismissal, to the plaintiff's failure to ask for a bill of particulars or a more definite notice, and to plaintiff's apparent realization of what was involved as shown by his preparedness to meet the charges at the hearing.

It is true that the charges of incompetency and willful neglect of duty were grounds of removal provided in 70 O.S.A. § 6-103. ⁸ However we cannot agree that this, without more, shows meaningful notice of what one must be prepared to meet. We do agree that the lack of any objection to the notice letter and the absence of any request for a more definite statement of the charges are significant. There was a reasonable time interval of 13 days between mailing the notice and the hearing itself. Not until the first witness at the hearing was called was any objection made to adequacy of the notice.

Plaintiff objects to the trial court's reasoning, citing Dunham v. Crosby, 435 F.2d 1177 (1st Cir.), which did reject a similar argument on lack of request for a hearing. The First Circuit held there that a teacher was not barred from asserting a due process claim of lack of a hearing by failure to request a hearing. We have no disagreement with the reasoning there applied.

We feel that here, however, since some notice was given to the plaintiff a reasonable time ahead of the scheduled hearing, an objection to the sufficiency of the notice not made until commencement of the hearing came too late. In fact, since his counsel made the objection quite fully and formally as the testimony started, with no request for a continuance, it is difficult for plaintiff to argue against a ruling of a knowing waiver. Particulars of asserted grounds for dismissal have been furnished in similar cases, e. g., Simard v. Board of Education of Town of Groton, 473 F.2d 988, 991 n.5 (2d Cir.); Blunt v. Marion County School Board, 515 F.2d 951, 954 (5th Cir.), and in the circumstances before us, we feel that the belated claim of insufficiency of the notice does not demonstrate a denial of due process. Cf. Grimes v. Nottoway County School Board, 462 F.2d 650, 653 (4th Cir.). Moreover, there is no persuasive showing that the defense was impeded by lack of further details. Simard v. Board of Education of Town of Groton, supra at 994.

In sum, we cannot sustain the claim that there was a defective notice which amounted to a denial of due process.

The claim of a biased tribunal

Plaintiff's most substantial claim of denial of procedural due process is that the board was a biased tribunal. The point The board is an elective body under Oklahoma law. 70 O.S.A. § 5-107A. At the time this dispute arose the board was the only body empowered to dismiss a superintendent for willful neglect of duty or incompetency. ⁹ In cases involving these grounds for removal, the board's decision at the...