Smith County Sch. Dist. v. Barnes


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CA-00681-COA
Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00681-COA2010-CT-00681-SCT2010-CT-00681-SCT
Oral Argument: 05-24-2011
 

 

* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users).

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 09-20-2011
Opinion Author: Roberts, J.
Holding: Reversed and rendered
Additional Case Information: Topic: Termination of employment - Substantial evidence - Drug and alcohol policy - Reasonable suspicion - Refusal to take drug test - Section 37-9-13(3)(b)
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Carlton and Maxwell, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Ishee, J.
Dissent Joined By : Myers, Barnes and Russell, JJ.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-10-2010
Appealed from: Smith County Chancery Court
Judge: Joe Dale Walker
Disposition: REVERSED AND RENDERED THE BOARD’S UNANIMOUS DECISION BY REINSTATING BARNES’S 2008-09 CONTRACT WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND REINSTATING HER AS A TEACHER
Case Number: 2009-180
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Smith County School District




 DAVID GARNER



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: Laura Shontelle Barnes EUGENE COURSEY TULLOS  
    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 - Substantial evidence - Drug and alcohol policy - Reasonable suspicion - Refusal to take drug test - Section 37-9-13(3)(b)
    Summary of the Facts: Laura Barnes was employed as an elementary school teacher with the Taylorsville Elementary School in the Smith County School District for eleven years. On May 12, 2009, Barnes’s employment was terminated after she violated the District’s drug and alcohol policy by refusing to submit to a drug test when requested. The Smith County School Board held a hearing and affirmed the District’s Superintendent of Education’s decision to terminate Barnes’s employment. Barnes then appealed the Board’s decision to chancery court which reversed the Board’s decision and reinstated Barnes’s employment at Taylorsville Elementary School. The Board appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: The Board argues that its decision was not arbitrary or capricious nor in violation of Barnes’s statutory or constitutional rights; instead, it was based on substantial evidence. The Board argues that Barnes’s behavior was sufficient to cause the administrators to have reasonable suspicion that Barnes might have been under the influence of drugs on May 6, 2009, while in the classroom supervising her students. Based on the reasonable suspicion, the administrators were permitted by the District’s assistant superintendent to request that Barnes take a drug test pursuant to the drug and alcohol policy of which Barnes was previously aware. The Board further argues that Barnes’s refusal to submit to the drug test warranted discipline, and the termination of her employment was an acceptable disciplinary action under the drug and alcohol policy in place. The District’s drug and alcohol policy defines reasonable suspicion that an employee is using or has used drugs or alcohol as abnormal conduct or erratic behavior while at work, absenteeism, tardiness, or deterioration in work performance. If there is reasonable suspicion, the employee will be required to submit to a drug and/or alcohol test, and the superintendent (or in his or her absence, an appointed replacement) must approve in advance all reasonable suspicion testing. Any employee who refuses to take a drug and alcohol test will be subject to discipline, up to and including immediate termination of employment. Here, the chancellor found that the Board’s decision was arbitrary or capricious under section 37-9-13(3)(b), and that Barnes was strictly held to the drug and alcohol policy, but the District did not hold itself to the same standard. However, the chancellor erred in holding that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. The evidence in the record demonstrates that the Board’s decision was not arbitrary in that it was done according to reason or judgment. The Board relied on the clear language in the District’s drug and alcohol testing policy when affirming the termination of Barnes’s employment. As a long-term employee with the District, Barnes was aware of the policy in place for drug and alcohol testing. She knew that she could be requested to take a drug test if reasonable suspicion was found to request one; she also knew that termination of employment was a possible disciplinary action as a result of a positive drug test or a refusal to take a drug test. The District’s decision to enforce its drug and alcohol policy as it is written is not arbitrary or capricious.


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