Smith v. Petal Sch. Dist.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CC-01394-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CC-01394-COA ; 2005-CT-01394-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-19-2006 Opinion Author: ISHEE, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Termination of employment - Validity of rider - Section 37-9-23 - Enforceability of rider - Due process - Arbitrary and capricious decision Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., SOUTHWICK, IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ROBERTS, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 06-20-2005 Appealed from: Forrest County Chancery Court Judge: James H.C. Thomas, Jr. Disposition: CHANCERY COURT AFFIRMED SCHOOL BOARD DECISION WITHOUT GRANTING ORAL ARGUMENT AND DENIED MOTION TO EXPAND THE RECORD WITHOUT DISCUSSION. Case Number: 05-0092-GN-TH |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | RAYMOND SMITH |
CHESTER D. NICHOLSON, GAIL D. NICHOLSON |
||
| Appellee: | PETAL SCHOOL DISTRICT | JAMES A. KEITH |
|
|
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: | Termination of employment - Validity of rider - Section 37-9-23 - Enforceability of rider - Due process - Arbitrary and capricious decision |
| Summary of the Facts: | Raymond Smith was employed as a teacher and assistant football coach at Petal High School for the 2004-2005 school year. On November 29, 2004, the District’s superintendent forwarded to Smith a letter notifying him that his employment contract for the 2005-2006 school year would not be renewed. Smith timely requested a hearing explaining the reasons and factual basis and support for the non-renewal. The hearing officer wrote a report, which he submitted to the District, along with the record of the proceedings. The Board unanimously voted to uphold the administration’s non-renewal of Smith’s contract. Smith appealed, and the chancery court affirmed the Board’s decision. Smith appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Validity of rider Smith argues that the action of the Board was arbitrary and capricious because the coaching rider which the District used to non-renew Smith’s contract by its own terms did not apply to a non-renewal, but only to resignations and terminations. He argues that because the rider was not officially approved by the Mississippi Board of Education, it is void under section 37-9-23. However, the plain language of the statute does not prohibit superintendents or school boards from including riders or attachments in employment contracts. Smith’s proposed reading of section 37-9-23 would unduly burden school boards by forcing them to receive approval from the Board of Education for every minor attachment or rider to a standard employment contract for every teacher they hired. Issue 2: Enforceability of rider Smith argues that the rider is not enforceable because it extended the time period named in his primary contract by two months but provided no additional monetary compensation, and this violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. This argument holds no merit, as Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations section 541.303 (b) clearly exempts from the FLSA teachers in general and, more specifically, those with coaching duties. Issue 3: Due process Smith argues that his right to Fourteenth Amendment due process was violated. Because the hearing officer’s report contained only selective citations to testimony, as well as ill-founded legal conclusions, and the hearing officer, in his report, became what basically amounts to an expert witness. This issue is completely without merit. Issue 4: Arbitrary and capricious decision Smith argues that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, because the violation of the coaching rider used to decline renewal of Smith’s contract by its own terms did not apply to non-renewal, but only to resignations and termination, and because it was unsupported by substantial evidence. Both the employment contract and rider refer to the single position of “teacher/coach.” Because the language unambiguously refers to a single position, the chancellor did not err by finding Smith’s failure to attend eight out of twenty-four football practices to be a sufficient basis for non-renewal. It is undisputed that Smith defiantly chose not to attend eight of the twenty-four summer workouts because he felt he was not being compensated for them. This alone is sufficient to constitute substantial evidence in support of the decision. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
