Williams v. Sumter School District Number 2

• Decision Date: 15 June 1966
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. AC-1534.
• Citation: 255 F. Supp. 397
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
• Parties: Irene WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. SUMTER SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 2, a public body corporate, Dan L. Reynolds, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Sumter School District Number 2, Sumter, South Carolina, and H. Curtis Edens, Jr., Clarence E. Phillips, Jr., W. Hazel McCoy and Russell F. Jones, Members, Board of Trustees of Sumter School District Number 2, Sumter, South Carolina; and Hugh T. Stoddard, Superintendent of Sumter School District Number 2, Sumter, South Carolina, Defendants.

255 F. Supp. 397

Irene WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. SUMTER SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 2, a public body corporate, Dan L. Reynolds, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Sumter School District Number 2, Sumter, South Carolina, and H. Curtis Edens, Jr., Clarence E. Phillips, Jr., W. Hazel McCoy and Russell F. Jones, Members, Board of Trustees of Sumter School District Number 2, Sumter, South Carolina; and Hugh T. Stoddard, Superintendent of Sumter School District Number 2, Sumter, South Carolina, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. AC-1534.

United States District Court D. South Carolina, Columbia Division.

June 15, 1966.

Ernest A. Finney, Jr., Sumter, S. C., Donald James Sampson, Greenville, S. C., Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., Matthew J. Perry, Columbia, S. C., and Jack Greenberg, New York City, for plaintiff.

Shepard K. Nash, Sumter, S. C., for defendants.

HEMPHILL, District Judge.

Plaintiff, a Negro citizen and school teacher, of Sumter, South Carolina, brings this action complaining that defendants acting under the color of authority¹ invested in them by the laws of South Carolina failed and refused to offer renewal of her contract to teach in the Sumter County Schools for the 1964-65 school year "by reason of the civil rights activities and associations designed to end racial discrimination engaged in by her." Her demand, filed September 15, 1964, among other prayers for relief, asked that the court "enter a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring the defendants * * * and those acting in concert with them to offer plaintiff a teaching contract * * * and to continue such contractual basis * * * without regard to * * * her activities in behalf of civil rights generally and the desegregation of public schools in particular." In reality she seeks mandamus, which, classified as an extraordinary and drastic legal writ,² may be issued where the duties sought to be enforced are clear and the sound discretion of the court requires it.

Plaintiff, who had been a teacher in Manchester School for 10 years prior to this action, was recommended for reemployment in the 1964-65 school year by her principal, who described her as "the best teacher we had — understanding, sympathetic, very diligent, very cooperative * * *." Aside from her teaching activity, it is admitted by all parties that she was vigorous in the promotion of civil rights in and about Sumter including but not limited to the following about which defendant Board knew, and which counsel explored during the course of the hearing before this Court:

(a) A leader in the "Sumter Movement" being on the Steering Committee guiding the activities of the movement, having charge of demonstrations and sit-ins.

(b) She was arrested by the police of the City of Sumter.

(c) Knew children between 10 and 16 years were in the parade, and that some of these children had been brought before the Domestic Relations Judge.

(d) Her husband, a teacher in the same School District as plaintiff, was in the parades but is still teaching for defendants at a salary of slightly above seven Thousand ($7000.00) Dollars per annum.

(e) Picketed in front of Singer Sewing Machine, Brodies Department Store, McLellan's Store, and Kress's Store, all on Main Street — wearing signs saying substantially "Hire Negro Clerks, equal opportunity for all" and such like slogans.

(f) Although knowing it was necessary to obtain permission from the Superintendent or Supervising Principal,³ did not obtain such permission, and absented herself on August 28, 1963, from the first meeting of teachers for 1964-65 school year, for the purpose of marching in the demonstrations in Washington, D. C.

(g) Entered students in a wool contest without permission of school authorities.

(h) Juveniles arrested and taken before the Domestic Relations Court, growing out of demonstrations, sit-ins, etc. — represented a total of 112 cases — not necessarily different children. Twenty one of these children were charged with trespassing, thirteen charged with conducting themselves in a manner dangerous to their welfare, and welfare of those around them.

From defendants' brief we quote: "Defendants, with above admitted facts before them, did not contract with plaintiff to teach for the year 1964-65."

Other related facts reveal that Dr. Hugh T. Stoddard, Superintendent of the School District during the entire period of Mrs. Williams' work at Manchester, was familiar with her work and considered it very good. She taught Home Economics and Family Living in the 9th, 10th, and 12th grades, had originally applied for a position in 1954 and was hired for the 1954-55 school year. Each Spring thereafter, until 1964, she, along with other teachers so inclined, indicated desire for reemployment in the same form submitted in evidence for 1963-64:

Office of Superintendent Mrs. Irene B. S. Williams School District Two.

Dear Mrs. Williams:

At a recent meeting of the Board of Trustees you were re-elected as a teacher in Sumter School District Number Two for the school year 1963-64.

It is requested that you indicate your acceptance or rejection by affixing your signature below and returning one copy of this letter within ten days after it has been received.

In the event that state aid is cut off as a result of the closing of a school or schools by court order, this contract is null and void.

We hope that you have enjoyed your work in our school district during this school term.

Sincerely yours /s/ Hugh T. Stoddard Hugh T. Stoddard Superintendent.

I hereby accept the above offer for employment in Sumter School District Number Two for the year 1963-64.

/s/ Irene B. Williams Signature Date May 15, 1963.

On May 18, 1964, after the civil rights events related hereinabove, and after Principal Benjamin F. Robinson of the Manchester School recommended her reemployment for the 1964-65 school year, Dr. Stoddard, who in turn had responsibility and authority for recommendations to the Board of Trustees (with final say in the hiring), wrote to Mrs. Williams:

I should like to have a conference with you at 4:30 P.M. on Wednesday afternoon, May 20, 1964, if this hour does not conflict with a previous engagement.

Yours very truly /s/ Hugh T. Stoddard Hugh T. Stoddard Superintendent.

Thereafter, on May 20, Mrs. Williams appeared and was orally advised she was not recommended for reemployment. She was advised of her right to appeal, and immediately, by letter, requested a hearing before the Board. On June 16, 1964, she appeared before the Board along with counsel, and the next day was advised:

Dear Mrs. Williams:

The Board considered your request as presented last night in the hearing at considerable length, but arrived at no final decision during that meeting.

You are herewith advised that a final decision will be made and conveyed to you in about two weeks.

Yours very truly, /s/ Hugh T. Stoddard Hugh T. Stoddard, Superintendent.

On June 24 she was advised:

Dear Mrs. Williams:

Your appeal presented to the Trustees, requesting renewal of contract for 1964-65, was considered in meeting of the Trustees of Sumter County School District Number Two.

You are herewith advised that no action was taken by the Trustees; and the initial notification, under date of May 18, 1964, still stands as the formal action of the Trustees.

Yours very truly, /s/ Hugh T. Stoddard Hugh T. Stoddard Superintendent.

Her appeal was not granted and she was not reemployed. At no time during the entire proceedings was (or has she yet been) advised of the reason for refusal of reemployment. At the Board of Trustees' hearing of June 16 colloquy between plaintiff counsel Finney and defendants' counsel Nash was:

Mr. Finney: May we inquire if the Board would state a reason why it has decided not to renew the contract of Mrs. Williams for the 1964-65 school year?

Mr. Nash: The Board hasn't stated any, the four teachers that were not re-elected, why they were not reelected.

Mr. Finney: Then am I to assume that in this instance the Board—

Mr. Nash: The Board has not stated to your client why she was not reelected.

Mr. Finney: But my question was, at this time would the Board—

Mr. Nash: The Board doesn't care to state, so I am advised.

and between counsel Nash and plaintiff:

Mr. Nash: Of course you understand that there are other things besides the fact of your education and your certificate that enter into teaching of a class of pupils?

Mrs. Williams: Oh yes, surely. And I wrote the Board to request this hearing and I am very happy to be granted that request. And I stated in the letter that I thought my service at Manchester for the past ten years merited at least a consideration of being given a reason for not having my contract renewed, and I was hoping—

Mr. Nash: Well of course you realize that this renewal is at the pleasure of the board, from year to year.

Mrs. Williams: Yes, I have been told that. Nevertheless I still feel that I have served the board, the school district—

Mr. Nash: Do you think that you have a right to this job as a matter of course, like when I was city attorney, they fired me and elected somebody else, and I had been city attorney for twenty years, but they up and fired me.

Mrs. Williams: Well I hope they gave you a reason. But no, I don't feel that I have a right to this job, but having had the job and feeling that I have done a good job, I feel that now that you no longer need my service, I feel that you should give me a reason, because my professional career is somewhat at stake. I will need to get a job and more than likely I will be asked, why were you fired?

Mr. Nash: You weren't fired.

Mrs. Williams: Well, why was your contract not renewed? I list my qualifications, and then, these, well, why do you want this job, and I would say well I, my contract wasn't renewed on the previous job, and they say why. I have no reason. I feel that you are not treating me in the way that you should; I really believe that I am entitled to a reason, and I would like to know.

Mr. Nash:

...