The S. C. Supreme Court recently declined to review a S. C. Court of Appeals ruling which overturned a school board's decision to terminate the employment of a certified employee. As a result, the Court of Appeals decision will stand, and the teacher now is entitled to be reinstated to her position with the district. This outcome is disturbing, and unfortunate, as it likely will have a negative impact on future teacher dismissal cases and how they are viewed by the courts of this state.
The case in question, Hall v. Sumter County School District No. 2, involved a media specialist, Ms. Hall, who agreed to serve as a chaperone on a school-sponsored field trip to Disney World. However, Ms. Hall did not remain with the students while they were in the Orlando area. She apparently had made some special arrangement with one of the other chaperones to ride the bus with the group and then leave the group upon their arrival in Florida. Ms. Hall did not rejoin the group until three days later, at the scheduled time of departure for the return trip. During the intervening days, Ms. Hall was seen by students in one of the Disney parks with a male companion. The male companion was not a District employee and did not spend any time on the bus with the group, as did Ms. Hall. However, the male companion had been listed as a chaperone on the list of chaperones for the trip.
Neither the school principal nor any other school or District administrator knew of Ms. Hall's plan. The school principal learned of Ms. Hall's conduct upon the group's return, when she received numerous comments from staff and students concerning Ms. Hall's disappearance and observations of her at the park with her male companion. When confronted about her separation from the students, Ms. Hall stated to the principal that she had wanted to get away for a few days to have some time to herself. She also acknowledged that her actions were stupid and that she should not have done what she did. When the Superintendent learned about the situation, he met with Ms. Hall to discuss her conduct. At that time, he placed her on administrative leave and advised her that he was going to conduct an investigation into the matter and that she was not to discuss the situation with any other District personnel while he completed the investigation. Nevertheless, Ms. Hall subsequently discussed the trip events with other employees whose misconduct, in connection with the trip, was also being investigated.
After completing his investigation into the trip occurrences and learning that Ms. Hall had defied his directive in regard to discussing the matter with others, the Superintendent advised Ms. Hall that he was recommending her termination for failure to properly supervise students during the trip and for insubordination regarding his directive. Ms. Hall was given a hearing before the District Board of Trustees and, following the presentation of evidence, the Board voted to accept the Superintendent's recommendation of dismissal. The Board concluded that Ms. Hall's conduct constituted Aevident unfitness,@ not related to the performance of her duties as a media specialist, but rather to her judgement, trustworthiness, and other personal attributes which the Board believed were important characteristics of a professional employee who works with children.
Ms. Hall appealed the Board's decision to the Sumter County Court of Common Pleas. After reviewing the record of the hearing before the Board and the written and oral arguments of legal counsel for Ms. Hall and the District, the judge concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board's decision and ordered the Board to reinstate the teacher. The District then appealed the judge's decision to the S. C. Supreme Court, who referred the matter to the S.C. Court of Appeals. After reviewing briefs submitted by legal counsel for each party, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, by a two-to-one vote, the lower court's decision that the Board's decision should be overturned. The Court of Appeals concluded that the reasons given for the termination were unrelated to Ms. Hall's regular responsibilities as a media specialist and that her conduct did not warrant termination.
The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, one of the three judges who heard the case, dissented, stating that he believed the two judges in the majority improperly had substituted their own interpretation of the facts for that of the Board's and that there was sufficient evidence to support the Board's conclusion. Historically, the courts of this state, particularly our Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, have adhered to the Asubstantial evidence rule, which means that a court will not substitute its judgment for that of a school board, as long as there is substantial evidence on the record such that reasonable minds could have concluded that the evidence did support the Board's determination. As recently as June 1997, our Supreme Court applied the substantial evidence rule in the case of Felder v. Charleston County School District, and concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the Board's decision to terminate Felder for a one-time act of unprofessional, insubordinate conduct. The Court concluded that it was the Board's responsibility to determine whether Felder's conduct warranted termination.
As a result of the Hall decision, teacher dismissals based on a one-time act of misconduct will have to be approached with an extra degree of caution and preparation. However, each case is unique, with a different set of facts and circumstances, and districts should still move forward with teacher termination cases where the termination is genuinely considered to be in the best interest of the district.