Woods v. Md. Sch. for Deaf
| Decision Date | 20 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 1241,1241 |
| Parties | ERIC WOODS v. MARYLAND SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF, ET AL. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Circuit Court for Frederick County
UNREPORTED
Nazarian, Gould, Wright, Alexander, Jr., (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Wright, J.
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
This appeal arises out of a challenge by Eric Woods, appellant, to a decision by the Maryland School for the Deaf ("MSD"), appellee, not to extend his contract as a teacher's aide. In a letter dated June 11, 2018, MSD notified appellant that it would not be offering him a contract for the 2018-19 school year. Appellant appealed that decision to the school's superintendent, James E. Tucker, who upheld the decision not to renew the contract. Thereafter, appellant filed in the Circuit Court for Frederick County a petition for writ of administrative mandamus. After a hearing on June 17, 2019, the circuit court issued a memorandum opinion and order denying the petition for writ of administrative mandamus. This timely appeal followed.
The sole issue presented for our consideration is whether MSD erred in denying appellant's petition for writ of administrative mandamus.1 For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
In August 2014, appellant began working as a teacher's aide at MSD, a state-run public-school which serves students who are deaf and hard-of-hearing. He was employed pursuant to a faculty contract, which MSD had the option to renew on an annual basis. Paragraph 10 of the contract, which governed contract renewal, provided:
No later than May 15 of the school year, MSD will notify the faculty member in writing of its intention to either renew or not renew the contract upon its expiration. The faculty member shall inform MSD in writing of an acceptance or rejection of an offer, at MSD's sole discretion. It is specificallyunderstood and agreed that the faculty member shall not be deemed to be granted tenure or similar status by virtue of entering into or accepting renewal of this contract.
MSD renewed appellant's contract each school year from 2014 through the end of the 2017-18 school year, and then notified him that the contract would not be renewed for the 2018-19 school year.
At various points in the 2017-18 school year, staff at MSD complained to administrators about appellant's behavior, including repeated confrontations by appellant based on his belief that staff members were hacking his iPhone and Facebook accounts. Staff members described appellant as using "unpleasant," "ugly" and "angry" facial expressions, and his behavior as uncomfortable, unsafe and creating a work environment that felt hostile. Appellant's supervisors met with him to discuss his workplace behavior and, on February 22, 2018, appellant was placed on paid administrative leave for the remainder of the school year. On that date, in a written memorandum to appellant, the school principal, Kevin Strachan, and the personnel director, Anny Currin, wrote:
As discussed in the meeting today, the principal has received complaints from employees that they feel you have harassed and intimated them throughout this school year. We have met and spoken several times about your concern that MSD employees have hacked your Face Book (sic) account. You admitted that you have approached staff about this during worktime even though you were told and given time in September to resolve the problem off campus. After our last meeting in January you were told that if you continued to speak to employees about this on campus we would have no alternative but to treat the complaints as a workplace bully grievance. The principal received several more complaints after that meeting and reported that you are creating a hostile work environment.
After explaining the State of Maryland's policy on bullying in the workplace, and stating that appellant's behavior "qualifies as offensive and intimidating," Strachan and Currin wrote, in part:
For this reason we are keeping you on paid administrative leave for the remainder of the school year. You will continue to receive your bi-weekly pay and keep your health benefits but you may not come on to either campuses [sic] without prior permission from the principals. You may not communicate with MSD staff during the school day for the remainder of the school year. If you violate either of these conditions, it will result in immediate termination. In accordance with Maryland School for the Deaf policy you or your representative may appeal this action; the appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days after this meeting.
Appellant appealed the decision to place him on administrative leave to James Tucker, the superintendent of MSD. (E. 21) Appellant argued that he had "been charged with workplace bullying and creating a hostile environment," that those allegations were "arbitrary, capricious and lack[ed] merit," and that "management failed to consider his mitigating circumstances." His requested remedy was "that management rescind the charging document dated 2/22/18 and remove it and any and all supporting documentation from his personnel file." In a letter dated April 16, 2018, the superintendent of MSD advised appellant that "the letter and documents were not currently in [his] file therefore there is no action required by the school at this time on your appeal." Appellant took no further action with respect to the decision to place him on paid administrative leave.
On June 11, 2018, MSD notified appellant that it would not offer him a contract for the 2018-19 school year. Appellant appealed that decision to the superintendent of MSD, who conducted an informal hearing on October 18, 2018. On or about November 7, 2018, the superintendent upheld the decision not to renew appellant's contract, writing:
I am aware that your behavior towards co-workers does not include physical aggression but you have intimidated MSD staff with behavior that borders on bullying by being intimidating. COMAR 17.04.05.04B(4) says an employee can be disciplined for being unjustifiably offensive in the employee's conduct toward fellow employees, wards of State or the public. Nothing you have presented to date indicates that your behavior is justified therefore I have no choice but to stand by the decision not to renew your contract for the 2018-2019 school year.
On December 6, 2018, appellant filed in the Circuit Court for Frederick County, a petition for administrative mandamus pursuant to Maryland Rule 7-401 et seq. Appellant characterized his petition as a challenge to the November 7, 2018 final administrative determination upholding "his termination from State service." He sought a reversal of that decision and reinstatement to his former position with back pay and benefits. After a hearing on June 17, 2019, the circuit court issued a written opinion in which it found that "the evidence did not show and the Court does not find that [appellant] was terminated" and the decision not to renew appellant's contract was not a violation of his constitutional rights because his "annually-contracted position secured no interest in re-employment for the next year."
We shall include additional facts as necessary in our discussion of the issue presented.
An action for a writ of administrative mandamus is available for "review of a quasi-judicial order or action of an administrative agency where review is not expressly authorized by law." Headen v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 418 Md. 559, 567 n.4 (2011), quoting Md. Rule 7-401. Maryland Rule 7-403 provides:
In considering an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of administrative mandamus, we apply the standard of review developed in judicial review proceedings. Armstrong v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 169 Md. App. 655, 667-68 (2006) (). Our focus is not on whether the circuit court erred, but "whether the administrative agency erred." Bayly Crossing, LLC v. Consumer Protection Division, 417 Md. 128, 136 (2010), quoting Consumer Protection Division v. Morgan, 387 Md. 125, 'elf. People's Counsel for Baltimore County v. Loyola College, 406 Md. 54, 66 (2008).
Ordinarily, a court reviewing a final decision of an administrative agency shall determine the legality of the decision and whether there was substantial evidence from the record as a whole to support the decision. Comm'r of Labor & Indus. v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Co., 462 Md. 479, 490 (2019). Purely legal questions are reviewed de novo, with considerable weight afforded to the agency's experience in interpretation of a statute that it administers. Id. "Substantial evidence is defined as 'such relevant evidence as areasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion[.]'" Id., quoting Schwartz v. Md. Dep't of Nat. Res., 385 Md. 534, 554 (2005). "Under the substantial evidence test, we may not substitute our own judgment" for that of the agency. Dakrish LLC v. Ra...
To continue reading
Request your trial