Rivers v. Bd. of Trustees, Forrest Co. Agric. High Sch.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2003-CC-00943-COA
Linked Case(s): 2003-CC-00943-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Date: 06-29-2004
Opinion Author: BRIDGES, P.J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Employee termination - Denial of discovery - Section 37-9-109 - Section 37-9-59 - Section 37-9-111 - Substantial evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: THOMAS, LEE, AND MYERS, JJ.
Dissenting Author : GRIFFIS, J.
Dissent Joined By : KING, C.J., SOUTHWICK, P.J., AND CHANDLER, J.
Concurs in Result Only: IRVING, J.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-18-2003
Appealed from: Forrest County Chancery Court
Judge: Sebe Dale, Jr.
Disposition: DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FORREST COUNTY AGRICULTURAL HIGH SCHOOL IS AFFIRMED.

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: JACK RIVERS




JERRY A. EVANS



 

Appellee: BOARD OF TRUSTEES, FORREST COUNTY AGRICULTURAL HIGH SCHOOL MORAN M. POPE  

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 termination - Denial of discovery - Section 37-9-109 - Section 37-9-59 - Section 37-9-111 - Substantial evidence

Summary of the Facts: Kyle Noble, superintendent of the Forrest County Agricultural High School, dismissed Jack Rivers, a teacher of the school, by written notification. Rivers requested a hearing, and the hearing was held before a hearing officer procured by the Board of Trustees. The Board unanimously voted to accept and uphold the recommendations of the hearing officer to terminate Rivers. Rivers appealed to the chancery court which affirmed the decision and order of the Board. Rivers appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Statutory rights Rivers was denied discovery, and he argues that his statutory and constitutional rights were violated. The trial court referred to section 37-9-109 which governs nonrenewals. However, this case is not a non-renewal action but is in fact a dismissal action, which is governed by section 37-9-59. If the employee avails himself of the option of a hearing, section 37-9-59 provides that such hearing shall be as prescribed in section 37-9-111. Actions involving non-renewal, under section 37-9-109, do not specifically reference section 37-9-59. To resolve the confusion faced in this case, it is suggested that the state legislature make appropriate and necessary provision or amendment to the present statute, or by additional statute for disposition of “dismissal actions,” so as to clarify this ambiguity. While in non-renewal cases the accused should get certain discovery and that section does provide for it, the section on dismissals does not provide such for a hearing. Therefore, Rivers statutory and constitutional rights were not violated. Issue 2: Substantial evidence Rivers argues that there was not substantial evidence to support his termination. A student accuses Rivers of acting in a deliberate manner by placing his hand on her leg and proceeding to move his hand upward. She stated that not only did she feel surprised and upset by Rivers's actions, but also uncomfortable as well. Her story never changed in its description, and she continued to be forthright in the telling of her version of what occurred. On the other side, Rivers adamantly denied the allegations made against him and admitted that any touching that may have been made by him was unintentional and may have occurred in the normal course of his work. Although there were no other witnesses to the incident in question, there was testimony by other students that was corroborative of the testimony of the student in this case, specifically that Rivers has been observed by other witnesses in a physical posture near other female students where the appearance to the witness was that Rivers was looking, or attempting to look, down in the blouse or shirt of females and toward their breasts. There was also testimony of Rivers's touching or rubbing a female student on her neck and down onto the area of the collarbone. Therefore, the Board met its burden of proving by substantial evidence.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court