Whittington v. Barbour County Bd. of Ed., 4 Div. 496.
Decision Date | 10 June 1948 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 496. |
Citation | 36 So.2d 83,250 Ala. 692 |
Parties | WHITTINGTON v. BARBOUR COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
E. W. Norton, of Clayton, and Richard T. Rives, of Montgomery, for appellant.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Silas C. Garrett, III, Asst Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appeal is from an order or decree of the Circuit Court of Barbour County, sustaining a demurrer to the petition of Mary Neil Whittington for the writ of mandamus seeking a review of the action of the Board of Education of Barbour County in terminating her employment, or cancellation of her employment contract, as a teacher in the Barbour County school system.
In substance the petition for mandamus shows the following: The appellant is a teacher, as that term is employed in the Teacher Tenure Law of this State, and was employed in the Barbour County school system for the school years 1944-1945 1945-1946 and 1946-1947. At the time the Board of Education took the first step which gave rise to this proceeding (April 29, 1947), she was then in the course of completing her third school year as a teacher in the Barbour County school system, and which school year ended on May 22, 1947. On April 29, 1947, the Board of Education gave Mrs. Whittington the following notice:
'Barbour County Schools
'Office of the Superintendent
'Clayton, Alabama
'April 29, 1947.
'Mrs. Mary Neil Whittington,
'Clayton, Alabama.
'Dear Mrs. Whittington:
'At a meeting of the County Board of Education this morning, I was instructed to notify you that the Board of Education will meet May 30, 1947, in the office of the County Superintendent of Education in Clayton, and on the date and at the place will consider at the hour of 10:00 A. M., the cancellation of your contract of employment.
'This notice is given in compliance with the provisions of the teacher tenure law.
'Very truly yours,
'P. A. McDaniel
'County Superintendent of Education and Executive Secretary of the Barbour County Board of Education.'
On May 5, 1947, Mrs. Whittington requested, in writing, that she be furnished with a written statement of the reasons for the consideration of the cancellation of her employment contract. On May 6, 1947, her request was complied with, and the following reasons assigned:
'1. Difficulty with discipline.
'2. Ineffective work done by pupils, probably due to lack of discipline.
'3. Dissatisfaction expressed by parents as a result of points being taken from grades as punishment.
'4. Inability to fit into the system perhaps as a result of local sentiment.
On May 9, 1947, Mrs. Whittington requested in writing a hearing of the charges against her, and, on May 10, 1947, she was notified that said hearing would be held on May 19, 1947. On May 19, 1947, by agreement of the parties, the hearing was continued until May 23, 1947. The hearing was conducted on May 23, 1947, and on May 30, 1947, the Board of Education by unanimous vote of the members thereof, evidence by the minute proceedings of the board, ordered the cancellation of Mrs. Whittington's employment contract, and she was so notified on that date.
The petition for writ of mandamus further alleges that, on May 23, 1947, before the taking of testimony, Mrs. Whittington objected to the board's hearing or considering the charges against her, or to further proceeding in the matter on the ground that section 357, Title 52, Code, had not been complied with. The objection was overruled, and the hearing proceeded with the results above indicated.
Section 352, Title 52, Code, reads:
Section 353, Title 52, Code, reads:
'The contract of employment of any teacher who shall attain continuing service status shall remain in full force and effect unless superseded by a new contract signed by both parties, or cancelled as provided in section 357 or section 358 of this title; provided that the legislature, or in the absence of legislation, the employing board of education may provide for the retirement of teachers at certain ages.'
Section 357, Title 52, Code, provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker v. Board of Education of Prince George's County, Md.
...274 (1955); Tucker v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 111 Cal.App.2d 875, 245 P.2d 597 (1952); Whittington v. Barbour County Board of Education, 250 Ala. 692, 36 So.2d 83 (1948); State ex rel. Bradford v. Board of Education, 75 Ohio App. 282, 61 N.E. 2d 916 (1945), aff'd 145 Ohio St. 56......
-
Faircloth v. Folmar
... ... 223 FAIRCLOTH v. FOLMAR et al. 4 Div. 541.Supreme Court of AlabamaMay 13, 1949 ... directed to the members of the Pike County Board of ... Education to require them to ... Whittington v. Barbour County Board of Education, ... 250 ... Brand, 303 U.S. 95, 58 S.Ct. 443, 82 L.Ed ... 685, 113 A.L.R. 1482; State ex rel. Steele ... ...
-
Price v. McConnell
... ... 686 PRICE v. McCONNELL. 6 Div. 673.Supreme Court of AlabamaJune 10, 1948 ... o'clock on the morning of April 4, 1945, while she was in ... front of the Pan-Am ... ...
-
Snell v. Brothers
...which reached a contrary conclusion. See Robb v. School District, 28 Colo.App. 453, 475 P.2d 30 (1970); Whittington v. Barbour County Board of Education, 250 Ala. 692, 36 So.2d 83 (1948). But, we are convinced that our own statutes and court decisions dictate the result we have Accordingly,......