Wilder v. Bd. of Trustees of the Hazlehurst City Sch. Dist.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CC-00048-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CC-00048-COA ; 2006-CT-00048-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-24-2007 Opinion Author: LEE, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Employee dismissal - Due process - Section 37-9-109 - Section 37-9-59 - Arbitrary and capricious decision - Impartial tribunal Judge(s) Concurring: MYERS, P.J., GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Dissenting Author : IRVING, J., dissents with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : CHANDLER, J. Concurs in Result Only: KING, C.J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-08-2005 Appealed from: Copiah County Chancery Court Judge: Ed Patten Disposition: CHANCELLOR AFFIRMED SCHOOL BOARD’S DECISION TO UPHOLD WILDER’S TERMINATION. Case Number: 2005-072 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | SHELTON WILDER |
THANDI WADE |
||
| Appellee: | BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE HAZLEHURST CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT | NATHANIEL A. ARMISTAD |
|
|
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: | Employee dismissal - Due process - Section 37-9-109 - Section 37-9-59 - Arbitrary and capricious decision - Impartial tribunal |
| Summary of the Facts: | Shelton Wilder was dismissed from his position as superintendent of the Hazlehurst City School District by the Hazlehurst City School Board. Wilder appealed to the chancery court which affirmed the dismissal. Wilder appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Due process Wilder argues that he was denied minimal due process because he was not provided a list of witnesses, documents, and a summary of the testimony within fourteen days of the hearing. Section 37-9-109 which is cited by Wilder governs nonrenewals. Because this is a dismissal action, that statute is inapplicable. Wilder was properly notified of his rights under section 37-9-59 which governs dismissals. Issue 2: Arbitrary and capricious decision Wilder argues that his dismissal was arbitrary and capricious because the Board acted outof haste and on will alone because they were angry that Wilder signed his revised contract under protest. The evidence does not show that Wilder was terminated because he signed the contract under protest; rather, the evidence shows that the Board made a decision based on continuous problems with Wilder, one being the contract. The contract is not mentioned in the termination letter nor in the Board’s final decision as a reason for Wilder’s termination. The Board’s main contention at the hearing was the breakdown in communication between Wilder and district personnel. Another concern was that Wilder ignored or circumvented the principal’s authority. The Board complained that Wilder withheld certain test scores after they were released, and that before Wilder released the scores to the Board, the scores were released to the media. Another complaint against Wilder was that he failed to meet the needs of staff members. Another contention with Wilder was that he knowingly manipulated salary figures and presented false numbers to the Board regarding a teacher’s supplement. Finally, the Board asserts Wilder was excessively absent from the office. Substantial evidence existed to hold that Wilder’s dismissal was not arbitrary or capricious. The continuing conflicts discussed, excluding the charge of excessive absence from the office, are enough to find substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusions. Issue 3: Impartial tribunal Wilder argues that three Board members, a majority of the Board, had something to gain by his dismissal, and, therefore, he was denied an impartial tribunal. Nothing in the record exists to substantiate Wilder’s assertion that the three Board members had a personal or financial stake in the outcome of his termination. Wilder’s arguments are based on pure speculation and opinion. Wilder also argues that after one of the members was elected to the Board, the majority shifted and was hostile toward Wilder because the members of the Board that now made up the majority had originally voted against him being superintendent. It would not be logical to find that any Board member who did not support a particular candidate for superintendent cannot be impartial in a later hearing to determine that person’s employment status. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
