Hodgins v. Philadelphia Public Sch. Dist.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CC-01919-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CC-01919-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-23-2007 Opinion Author: IRVING, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Nonrenewal of employment contract - Denial of hearing - Section 37-9-103 - Employee manual - Notice - Section 37-9-105 - Board minutes - M.R.C.P. 61 Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE, MYERS, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-03-2006 Appealed from: Neshoba County Chancery Court Judge: J. Max Kilpatrick Disposition: AGENCY DECISION AFFIRMED |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | BOBBIE HODGINS |
WILLIAM T. MAY
TERRY L. JORDAN
TANYA L. PHILLIPS |
||
| Appellee: | PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT | DONALD JOSEPH KILGORE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Nonrenewal of employment contract - Denial of hearing - Section 37-9-103 - Employee manual - Notice - Section 37-9-105 - Board minutes - M.R.C.P. 61 |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Philadelphia Public School District decided not to renew Bobbie Hodgins’ employment contract as an assistant principal. After Hodgins unsuccessfully challenged the nonrenewal before the Philadelphia School Board, she appealed to chancery court, which affirmed the nonrenewal. Hodgins appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Denial of hearing Hodgins argues that she was entitled to a hearing on the nonrenewal, because she was covered under the statute which guarantees the right of a hearing to a nonrenewed employee if the employee has been employed by the local school district for a continuous period of two years, and because the school’s policy manual did not contain a requirement that an employee be employed for two continuous years in order to receive a hearing. The clear meaning of section 37-9-103 which defines an “employee” is that an employee must complete a second year of employment before the employee is entitled to the protections afforded “employees” by the Education Employment Procedures Law of 2001. Under Hodgins’ interpretation, any employee would qualify as long as the employee had completed one year of employment with the school district and was currently in the second year of employment. Such clearly was not the intent of the legislature based on the express language of the statute. Issue 2: Employee manual Hodgins argues that the school district’s personnel policy created a right for her to have a hearing regarding the nonrenewal. In 2001, section 37-9-103 was amended and changed to its present form. Therefore, prior to 2001, there was no requirement that an assistant principal work for a school district for two years before gaining the protection of the statute. The personnel policy to which Hodgins refers indicates that it was written in January 1999, and contains no requirement that an assistant principal work for the school district for any period of time before being entitled to a hearing and other protections. The policy, however, clearly states that school board policies follow state and federal laws and related regulations and procedures for employment, retention, and dismissal of all personnel. While the policy manual used by the school is poorly written, there is no evidence it is intended to give greater protection to school employees than is afforded by statute. Nor is there any indication or evidence that the district’s intention was to do anything other than follow the current version of the statute. It is clear that the school district simply neglected to update its personnel policy to conform to a change in the relevant statute, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the district intended to create greater protections than the EEPL when it failed to update its policy. Issue 3: Notice Citing section 37-9-105, Hodgins argues that she was entitled to automatic renewal of her contract based on the District’s failure to comply with notice requirements. The requirements promulgated in section 37-9-105 apply only to employees who have worked with the school district for two continuous years. Issue 4: Board minutes Hodgins argues that because the board erred when it refused to record its vote to deny her a due process hearing, this refusal hindered her right to an appeal. As Hodgins is currently appealing that decision, it is unclear how the refusal hindered her right to an appeal. Although the board should have recorded its decision in its minutes, Hodgins has offered no showing of prejudice as a result of this error. Thus, the board’s refusal to record its decision is harmless error pursuant to M.R.C.P. 61. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
