832 F. Supp. 2d 602
D.S.C.2011Background
- Plaintiff, a certified educator, was Deputy Superintendent of Human Resources for the Fairfield County School District and was demoted in 2008 to Director of Food Services with a salary cut.
- Dr. Samantha Ingram became Superintendent in 2007; in April 2008 the district reorganized administratively and notified Plaintiff of the demotion and salary reduction for the 2008-2009 year.
- The District paid Plaintiff at Deputy Superintendent level through the 2007-2008 contract year and provided a new administrative contract for 2008-2009 at the reduced salary.
- Plaintiff asserted four claims: violation of the Teacher Employment and Dismissal Act, due process, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and temporary relief; the latter two were abandoned or dismissed earlier.
- Plaintiff relied on Johnson v. Spartanburg County School District No. 7 to argue a right to a hearing under the Teacher Act; Defendant argued 59-24-15 eliminates such rights for administrators.
- South Carolina Supreme Court later held that 59-24-15 overruled Johnson, denying rights to an administrator’s position or salary, and the federal court certified and then adopted that ruling for the Teacher Act claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 59-24-15 foreclose Teacher Act rights? | Ingram argues Johnson controls rights in position/salary as administrator. | 59-24-15 overruled Johnson; no rights to administrator position or salary exist. | Plaintiff has no Teacher Act rights; Defendant granted summary judgment on this issue. |
| Does Plaintiff have a constitutionally protected property interest in Deputy Superintendent salary? | Teacher Act creates a property interest in deputy salary; policy may grant due process rights. | No property interest exists under SC law; 59-24-15 eliminates rights and policy cannot create one. | No protected property interest; due process claim fails. |
| Did Policy CFC create a due process or property right to a hearing? | Policy CFC afforded a hearing and thus created a property right to the Deputy position/salary. | Procedural policies do not create substantive property rights; policy deviations are non-protective. | Policy CFC does not create a cognizable property right; due process claim fails. |
| Is the decision retroactive under 59-24-15 when applied to Plaintiff's demotion? | Applying 59-24-15 retroactively would undermine vested rights. | 59-24-15 became effective before the events and applies prospectively; retroactivity not shown. | statute applies prospectively; no retroactive rights to relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Snipes v. McAndrew, 280 S.C. 320, 313 S.E.2d 294 (1984) (S.C. 1984) (demotion not a dismissal; no right to hearing for transfer)
- Johnson v. Spartanburg County Sch. Dist. No. 7, 314 S.C. 340, 444 S.E.2d 501 (1994) (S.C. 1994) (demotion with salary reduction triggers some protections)
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (U.S. 1972) (property interests arise from state law; entitlement required)
- Kilcoyne v. Morgan, 664 F.2d 940 (4th Cir.1981) (4th Cir. 1981) (procedural rights do not create substantive property rights)
- Jackson v. Long, 102 F.3d 722 (4th Cir.1996) (4th Cir. 1996) (policy-based grievances do not create property interests)
- Sabet v. Eastern Virginia Medical Authority, 775 F.2d 1266 (4th Cir.1985) (4th Cir. 1985) (unilateral expectations cannot create entitlement)
- Ward v. Dixie Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 595 F.3d 164 (4th Cir.2010) (4th Cir. 2010) (retroactivity considerations in Fourth Circuit context)