Summer 2010 1

Teacher Tenure in Louisiana

Summer 2010 2

In this case the principal of Atlanta High School (in Winn Parish) took a week when he was paid to work after the school year to do other things. The principal took a week off. The superintendent testified that he did not give the principal permission to do so, but also that he did not tell him he could not do this. The principal was charged with “willful neglect of duty” and dismissed after a tenure hearing.

Summer 2010 3

ROBERT HOWELL v. WINN PARISH SCHOOL

BOARD 332 So. 2d 822 1976 After an administrative hearing on the question, the Winn

Parish School Board dismissed plaintiff as principal of the Atlanta High School in Atlanta, Louisiana, and as an employee of the Winn Parish School Board, finding him guilty of willful neglect of duty. Pursuant to the provisions of La. R.S. 17:443 B., n1 which authorize a tenured employee to petition the court for a full hearing to review the action of the school board, plaintiff filed suit requesting that he be reinstated and awarded a monetary judgment for back salary and attorney's fees. The district court dismissed the suit and the Court of Appeal affirmed. Howell v. Winn Parish School Board, 321 So.2d 420 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1975).

The trial court held that there was substantial evidence to support the school board's finding that plaintiff was absent for the week in question without permission and, on this basis, affirmed the decision of the board.

Summer 2010 4

“After reviewing conflicting testimony with respect to whether plaintiff had permission to be absent, the Court of Appeal concluded that this was a factual issue involving credibility and that as the board's finding was not manifestly erroneous it should not be disturbed. They then held that this conduct did constitute "willful neglect of duty," noting as follows: ” "We have examined all cases cited by counsel in brief and

do not find that any are sufficiently analogous factually to define what conduct constitutes 'willful neglect of duty.'"Although the evidence does not show any real or serious harm was caused by plaintiff's absence for the week in question and though his dismissal under the circumstances could be termed harsh, we nevertheless are of the opinion such a dereliction is sufficient to authorize the board to exercise its discretion to terminate the employment."

Summer 2010 5

“Despite this provision for a full hearing before the district court, the standard of judicial review of a school board's  action is still whether there is a rational basis for the board's determination supported by substantial evidence insofar as factually required. In such cases, the reviewing court must neither substitute its judgment for the judgment of the school board nor interfere with the board's bona fide exercise of discretion.” Howell v. Winn Parish School Bd., 332 So. 2d 822 (La. 1976) p8 (emphasis added)

Summer 2010 6

SONJA WISE Versus BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARDSUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA 851 So. 2d 1090; 2003Ms Wise was dismissed after a tenure hearing on the following charges: Wise demonstrated willful neglect of duty by referring students to the

office in contravention of school policy and the directives of her supervisor on September 22, 1992 and October 5, 1992. (Charges I(A) and (E)).

Wise refused to sign the form her supervisor, Kenneth Kruithof, prepared after he conducted a formal observation of Wise in her classroom and further made no effort to implement suggestions for improvement given to her by her supervisors. (Charges I(B),(C), (F)).

Wise failed to implement the Professional Assistance Schedule prepared for her on November 4, 1992, e.g., lesson plans were not timely submitted, seating charts were not turned in timely. (Charges I(D) and (G)).

The record does not reflect the reason for the delay of one and a half years between Wise's placement on paid leave and her notification of the formal charges against her.

Summer 2010 7

The court of appeal found the School Board abused its discretion in its dismissal of Wise on the basis of the charges lodged against her. It found that although the specific charges against Wise may have exhibited her unsatisfactory performance as a classroom teacher, the record failed to establish that her failure to address those deficiencies was due to any deliberate or willful act in contravention of a direct order or school policy.

Summer 2010 8

The Louisiana Supreme Court said” “After the district court affirmed the School Board's

decision, the court of appeal reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to establish Wise's classroom management and instructional deficiencies and that she willfully neglected her duty as a classroom teacher. We granted the School Board's writ application to determine whether the appellate court properly applied the standard of review. Finding that the appellate court substituted its opinion for that of the School Board and impermissibly interfered with the School Board's role as fact finder, we reverse and reinstate the decision of the School Board and the judgment of the district court.”

Summer 2010 9

The district court may not substitute its judgment for that of the school board or interfere with the school board's good faith exercise of discretion. Howard, 793 So. 2d at 153; McLaughlin v. Jefferson Parish School Board, 560 So. 2d 585 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1990); Sampson v. Lincoln Parish School Board, 439 So. 2d 454 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1983). The district court's responsibility in such a case is to determine whether the school board's action was supported by substantial evidence, or conversely, constituted an arbitrary decision and thus an abuse of discretion. (emphasis added) Howell, 332 So. 2d at 825; Roberts v. Rapides Parish School Board, 617 So. 2d 187, 190 (La. App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 619 So. 2d 1068 (La. 1993). As with the district court, [Pg 7] a court of appeal n5 may not reverse the decision of a district court unless it finds the school board's termination proceedings failed to comply with statutory formalities and/or the school board's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. (emphasis added) Wiley, 476 So. 2d at 442; Cook v. Natchitoches Parish Sch. Bd., 342 So. 2d 702 (La. App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 345 So. 2d 52 (La. 1977); Mims v. West Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 315 So. 2d 349 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1975).

Summer 2010 10

In JAMES HOWARD v. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

793 So. 2d 153 we find: Actions for which teachers of this state have not been terminated

include where: teacher with an unblemished record was not terminated for

showing students movies containing nudity, vulgarity, violence, and explicit scenes, West v. Tangipahoa Parish School Bd., 615 So. 2d 979 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1993);

teacher showed junior high school students "R" rated movie because school had no film policy in effect, Jones v. Rapides Parish School Bd., 634 So. 2d 1197 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1993);

teacher in an isolated incident displayed a gun to a student to defend himself when physically attacked, Landry v. Ascension Parish School Bd., 415 So. 2d 473 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1982);

teacher is unable with much effort to control class, Coleman, 688 So. 2d at 1312;

teacher violated trivial lunch regulations and actions were immediately corrected, Johns v. Jefferson Davis Parish School Bd., 154 So. 2d 581 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1963);

teacher is absent due to pregnancy, childbirth, and recuperation, Gassen v. St. Charles Parish School Bd., 199 La. 954, 7 So. 2d 217 (La. 1942). ”

Summer 2010 11

Actions for which teachers of this state have been terminated include where: teacher read sexually suggestive material to students and used

profanity, Williams v. Concordia Parish School Bd., 95-980(La. App. 3 Cir. 1/31/96), 670 So. 2d 351;

teacher tied five year old behaviorally disordered student to a desk, bound at the ankles and wrists with duct tape, and left him in the doorway in public view for two hours, Sylvester v. Cancienne, 95-0789 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/9/95), 664 So. 2d 1259;

teacher's deficiencies in record keeping which jeopardized accreditation, Gaulden v. Lincoln Parish School Bd., 554 So. 2d 152 (La. App. 2 Cir 1989);

teacher left students unattended in direct contravention of principal's orders at least once, Meyers v. Sabine Parish School Bd., 499 So. 2d 690 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1989);

teacher left handicapped students locked unattended in classroom, missed classes without permission or substitute, and knew her conduct was contrary to school policy, Franklin Parish School Bd., 457 So. 2d 184 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1984);

Summer 2010 12

teacher, despite contentions he was not notified of school regulations, was terminated for making racial and sexual statements, assuming role of hall supervisor, failing to provide lesson plans and roll book to substitutes, and refusing to accept criticism from principal. Simon v. Jefferson Davis Parish School Bd., 289 So. 2d 511 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1974);

teacher failed to comply with reasonable regulations adopted for proper administration of schools, Blanchet v. Vermilion Parish School Bd., 254 La. 17, 222 So. 2d 68 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1969);

teacher refused to allow supervisory personnel to enter his classroom, even after he was advised that board regulations specifically required him to do so, Tichenor v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 144 So. 2d 603 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1962).

Summer 2010 13

WHICKLEFF J. CHAPITAL VERSUS ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

780 So. 2d 1110

Summer 2010 14

JAMES HOWARD v. WEST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

793 So. 2d 153

DISPOSITION: Decision of the School Board to terminate Howard and judgment of the district court upholding dismissal for willful neglect of duty reversed, and court of appeal opinion affirming decisions overruled.

Summer 2010 15

Plaintiff, a tenured teacher was terminated by the West Baton Rouge Parish School Board (School Board) for willful neglect of duty after he brought a gun on campus in his car. Plaintiff appealed and the termination was upheld by the district court and court of appeal. The court of appeal held that evidence supported finding that teacher committed willful neglect of duty by bringing a gun to school in his car.

The superintendent later reasoned the charges of willful neglect were appropriate because, "any employee or any teacher who will place a vehicle in the proximity of students where they can go into a vehicle and pick a gun up is neglectful of providing for the health and safety of the students under their responsibility," that teachers are role models, and . . . if I'm not going to allow a student to have a weapon on campus, I cannot allow a teacher to have a weapon on campus."

Summer 2010 16

“Upon review of the transcript and all evidence on the record in this matter, we cannot say that the School Board has proved by substantial evidence that Howard acted with willful neglect. The School Board did not have a rational basis supported by substantial evidence to terminate Howard for willful neglect of duty. The record indicates that the School Board was satisfied that Howard fulfilled his duties as a teacher to the best of his ability. The record does not support a finding that he intended his gun to be stolen and the behavior of his students certainly was not voluntary on his part.  Thus, we reverse the School Board, trial court, and court of appeal. We reinstate Howard to his former position with all salary, compensation, and emoluments.”

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the School Board to terminate Howard, the judgment of the district court upholding the dismissal for willful neglect of duty, and overrule the court of appeal opinion affirming these decisions.

Summer 2010 17

LEE VERSUS EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD 887

So. 2d 1 COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIRST CIRCUIT

A tenured teacher was fired by the board. She appealed and tried to get the court to allow her to depose all members of the school board, saying they were predisposed to find her guilty and as an aside, alleging improper conduct during the trial saying they “ate, drank sodas, and 'kibitzed' among themselves”.

Her writ was denied!!!

Summer 2010 18

LEVON LEBAN VERSUS ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

972 So. 2d 376 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/21/07) A tenured teacher was accused of sexual

harassment by a student. The principal investigated the case, got a recored statement from the student.

A Level I hearing with a district hearing officer was held.

The case was allowed to sit dormant for five and one-half years and then the teacher was fired.

Summer 2010 19

The teacher appealed to the district court and the dismissal was reversed.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court saying that the teacher was not accorded the basic element of due process.

Because of the time passage he was unable to be given proper and required due process.

Summer 2010 20

JANE MARKS RICHARD VERSUS LAFAYETTE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD 984 So. 2d 218 (La.App. 3 Cir. 05/21/08) Facts: The teacher worked as a special

education pre-school teacher. The teacher was initially reprimanded for failing to comply with the individual education plans for three of her students, failing to complete lesson plans and progress reports, and for hitting a child with a ruler. The teacher was suspended with pay after the school principal learned of her using inappropriate or unnecessary restraints on the children in her class.

Summer 2010 21

Superintendent sent a certified letter to the teacher tell her that he was recommending her termination

A tenure hearing was held and the board terminated the teacher.

The teacher appealed and the District Court affirmed that the board substantially complied with her rights to due process.

The teacher appealed to the 4th Circuit court

Summer 2010 22

The decision of the District Court was “Reversed and Remanded” saying that the teacher was not given the procedural due process that the law requires.

The problem was that the nature of the charges were not included in the superintendent’s letter to the teacher telling her of the decision to recommend termination.