Alexander v. Reeves
| Docket Number: | 2010-CC-01992-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-26-2012 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Employment termination - Authority of conservator - Section 37-17-6(11)(c)(iii) - Due process - Notice of termination - Section 37-9-111(5) - Final statement - Substantial evidence - Section 37-9-59 - Neglect of duty Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-29-2010 Appealed from: Copiah County Chancery Court Judge: Ed Patten Disposition: TEACHER TERMINATION AFFIRMED Case Number: 2010-028 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Garry Alexander |
JAMES T. MCCAFFERTY III |
|
|
| Appellee: | James Reeves, Conservator of the Hazlehurst School District Acting in Place of the Board of Trustees of the Hazlehurst School District | JOHN SIMEON HOOKS 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: | Employment termination - Authority of conservator - Section 37-17-6(11)(c)(iii) - Due process - Notice of termination - Section 37-9-111(5) - Final statement - Substantial evidence - Section 37-9-59 - Neglect of duty |
| Summary of the Facts: | Garry Alexander was terminated from his position as a health and physical education teacher at Hazlehurst Middle School. After hearings were conducted regarding his termination, James Reeves, the conservator for the Hazlehurst School District, upheld the decision. Alexander appealed to chancery court which affirmed the decision. Alexander appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Authority of conservator Alexander argues that neither of the two conservators established that they were validly appointed conservators with the authority to terminate Alexander. Alexander never argued at the termination hearing that Reeves was not a lawfully appointed conservator. An appellate court is under no obligation to review an assignment of error when an objection was not made. In addition, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the two conservators were not vested with the authority to act in this matter. At the time of Alexander’s termination, the Governor of Mississippi had declared a state of emergency in the Hazlehurst School District, and acting under the authority of section 37-17-6(11)(c)(iii), had appointed an interim conservator to be responsible for the administration, management, and operations of the school district. In essence, the conservator acts, for all intents and purposes, as the school board. Issue 2: Due process Alexander argues that a conservator could not recommend termination and also be responsible for the termination. In this case, Blackmon, the interim conservator, sent a letter notifying Alexander of the termination. After the termination, but before the hearing was held, Blackmon was replaced by Reeves as conservator of the Hazlehurst School District. Reeves upheld the termination after Alexander received a hearing. However, Alexander argues that he could not have been afforded a fair and unbiased hearing as required by law because Blackmon and Reeves were both MDE employees. Alexander was not denied due process. Alexander has not provided any evidence that he was harmed by having either of the conservators involved in his termination. Alexander received a hearing after being given written notice of the specific reasons for his termination. Furthermore, Acton was the individual who made the initial recommendation for termination. Blackmon merely sent the notice of termination, and Reeves made the final ruling to uphold the decision to terminate after three hearings had been conducted. Alexander also argues that his statutory and due-process rights were violated since he was not given the opportunity to make a statement before the final decision was made. Admittedly the school district’s failure to allow Alexander an opportunity to give a final statement prior to the conservator’s final decision was not in accordance with the requirements of section 37-9-111(5). However, Alexander was given ample notice of the charges against him, was represented by counsel, and was afforded a full opportunity to address them on the three separate hearing dates. Thus, there was a substantial and manifestly good faith attempt to comply with the statute. Issue 3: Substantial evidence Section 37-9-59 provides that a teacher may be terminated by a school district “[f]or incompetence, neglect of duty, immortal conduct, intemperance, brutal treatment of a pupil or other good cause[.]” However, before the employee’s dismissal or suspension, he “shall be notified of the charges against him[,] and he shall be advised that he is entitled to a public hearing upon said charges.” Alexander was advised that his termination was based on neglect of duty, specifically: his failure to supervise his classroom adequately and his failure to report a playground incident involving students to the administrator. There was abundant testimony at the hearings by four witnesses regarding the disruptiveness of Alexander’s pupils and his inadequate supervision of the classroom. Furthermore, although Alexander argues that another teacher should have been assisting him on the playground, there was no indication that Alexander would have acted differently if other teacher had been present. The record shows that there was a rational and factual basis for Alexander’s termination and no indication that the decision was based on improper criteria. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
