Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 06/04/96 OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 95-CC-00938 COA MARION G. ODOM APPELLANT v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE YAZOO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEE

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. EDWARD G. CORTRIGHT COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: YAZOO COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: GAIL D. NICHOLSON ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: M. JAMES CHANEY NATURE OF THE CASE: SCHOOL RE-EMPLOYMENT TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED SCHOOL BOARD'S DECISION NOT TO REHIRE ODOM

BEFORE FRAISER, C.J., COLEMAN, AND McMILLIN, JJ. FRAISER, C.J., FOR THE COURT: This appeal arises from a decision of the Yazoo County Chancery Court affirming the decision of the Board of Trustees of the Yazoo City School District (the Board) not to re-employ Marion Odom for

the 1994-1995 school year. Odom asserts that the Board's decision not to re-employ him is in error for the following reasons: (1) the issue is barred from relitigation by the doctrine of` collateral estoppel; (2) the Board's actions were arbitrary and capricious; (3) the Board failed to follow its reduction in force policy; (4) the hearing officer "giving directives to the board as opposed to merely conducting the hearing is violative of due process." The Yazoo County School District (the District) argues that Odom failed to timely perfect his appeal. We conclude, as did the Yazoo County Chancery Court in its well reasoned opinion, that there exists no basis under established legal principles upon which to disturb the action of the Board; therefore, we affirm. FACTS Prior to the spring of 1993, Odom was a certified fourth grade math and science instructor with Woolfolk Elementary School in the Yazoo City School District. On March 5, 1993, Odom's principal, Wardell Leach, informed the district superintendent, Dr. Kinnebrew, thatO dom should be placed on probation because of an incident involving Odom's alleged violence toward a student who was in a fight, at school, with Odom's son that he should be placed on probation. At the same time, he recommended that Odom be re-employed for the 1993-1994 school year but on a strict probationary status. Despite principal Leach's conditional recommendation, superintendent Kinnebrew sought non-renewal of Odom's contract for the 1993-1994 school year. Odom requested a non-renewal hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer recommended to the Board that the Superintendent's decision not to re-employ Odom be overruled as an improper employment decision. The Board accepted the hearing officer's recommendation, and Mr. Odom was given a new contract for the year 1993-1994. However, neither the judgment of the Board nor the 1993-1994 contract was entered in the record. In August of 1993, a new superintendent, Dr. Cartlidge, was employed by the District. At that time Odom had yet to be assigned any duties under his 1993-1994 contract. Principal Leach made it known to the superintendent that although he was willing to re-employ Odom for the 1993-1994 school year, he did not want him as a regular classroom teacher because of prior incidents and complaints he had received about Odom. In view of principal Leach's position, Dr. Cartlidge assigned Odom to a newly created position at Woolfolk Elementary School designated, "in-school suspension coordinator." Odom accepted the new position, which required him to supervise students with disciplinary problems. His duties consisted of giving instructional help to between five and fifteen students a day who, because of their behavior, were assigned to the in-school suspension program. According to Principal Leach, Odom did a satisfactory job in his new position and at the end of the 1993-1994 school year, he recommended to the superintendent that Odom's contract be renewed. In preparing for the 1994-1995 school year, Dr. Cartlidge determined that he could reduce the cost to the school district by filling the in-school suspension coordinator position with a non-certified employee. In view of this determination by Dr. Cartlidge and principal Leach's opposition to having Odom occupying a teaching position, Dr. Cartlidge advised Odom that he would not be renewed for the 1994-1995 school year. Upon receipt of the notice of non-renewal, Odom exercised his statutory right to a hearing and requested that reasons be assigned for his non-renewal. The reasons given were as follows: (1) The superintendent determined that, for financial reasons, the school district should

not staff the In-School Suspension Coordinator position with personnel who are certified teachers;

(2) No elementary school principals wanted to have Mr. Odom in a classroom teaching position on their staff;

(3) The District believed it could have a better classroom teacher than Mr. Odom; (4) Mr. Odom continued to have poor relations with parents and other staff members.

The hearing was conducted on May 9, 1994, before a hearing officer with only Dr. Cartlidge and principal Leach testifying on behalf of the District. Odom offered no witnesses on his behalf. On June 14, 1994, the hearing officer rendered a lengthy opinion and opined that the decision not to reemploy was sustained by the law and facts and recommended that Odom not be re-employed. The minutes of the Board reflect that it met on July 7, 1994, with Odom and his attorney present. After Odom's attorney addressed the Board, the Board announced that it had reviewed the transcript of the hearing conducted by the hearing officer and was of the opinion that the decision not to renew Odom's employment contract was a proper decision. On July 28, 1994, Odom filed an appeal from the decision of the Board to the Yazoo County Chancery Court and served the attorney for the school district a copy thereof. At that time his counsel deposited his appeal bond with the clerk. However, Odom's counsel took no further action until March 20, 1995, when she filed Odom's chancery court appellant's brief. She mailed the Board's attorney a copy thereof on March 17, 1995. In the letter addressed to the clerk accompanying the appellant's brief, the attorney for Mr. Odom stated: To my knowledge, there has been no scheduling order entered nor has the case been assigned to a specific Chancellor. I would appreciate your attention to seeing that the appropriate Judge receives this Brief and I would like to be notified of the identity of the Judge and the scheduling order that will control the briefing schedule in this case.

On March 21, 1995, the attorney for the Board wrote the attorney for Odom that he thought Odom had determined not to prosecute his appeal because nothing had been done since the notice of appeal was filed. In this letter, the Board's attorney called attention to the fact that Odom even at that point had not filed the transcript of the hearing, the decision of the hearing officer, and the decision of the Board. On March 24, 1995, Odom proceeded to file these documents with the Board. At that time the matter was called to the attention of the chancery court, which on March 27, 1995, entered a scheduling order. In the chancery court, the District argued Odom had not timely filed his appeal. The chancery court

agreed the appeal was not timely filed but out of an abundance of caution addressed the merits of Odom's claims. The chancery court affirmed the Board's findings concluding that the law and evidence supported the Board's decision not to renew Odom's contract. DISCUSSION The standard of review for a teacher's nonrenewal hearing is well established. This Court must limit its review to the record made before the school board. We will affirm the Board's determination unless its decision is contrary to the law, arbitrary and capricious, or not supported by the evidence. Byrd v. Greene County Sch. Dist., 633 So. 2d 1018, 1022 (Miss. 1994). Further, "[u]nder our law, the school administration may refuse to rehire a teacher for good reason, for bad reason, or for no reason at all. The administration simply may not base its decision not to rehire upon legally impermissible considerations." Mississippi Employment S ec. Comm'n. v. Philadelphia Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 437 So. 2d 388, 397 (Miss. 1983). TIMELINESS OF ODOM'S APPEAL TO CHANCERY COURT The District argues that Odom's appeal is procedurally barred because he did not timely perfect his appeal from the Board's ruling to chancery court. The evidence reflects that the Board verbally rendered its decision on July 7, 1994, and Odom filed his notice of appeal on July 26, 1994. The Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the day of the "act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included" when counting days. M.R.C.P. 6 Further, the day from which we begin counting is not the day of the Board's decision but the day that Odom received written notice of the decision. Miss. Code Ann.

Download Marion G. Odom vs. Yazoo City Sch Dist.pdf

Mississippi Law