Jeffrey Hewitt v. Westfield Washington School Corporation, 46 N.E.3d 425

Background

Jeffery Hewitt signed a two-year contract (state-prescribed teacher form) to serve as principal of Monon Trail Elementary; the contract also preserved his underlying teacher employment.
School administrators learned Hewitt had a sexual relationship with a teacher subordinate (Feb–Nov 2011); Hewitt admitted the relationship when questioned.
The board sought immediate termination of Hewitt’s administrator (principal) contract after he refused to make his resignation immediately effective; the board placed him on leave and provided a private conference opportunity.
At the private conference (with counsel), Hewitt had notice of the reasons, could respond, and could describe supporting witnesses; the board voted to terminate his principal contract effective immediately.
Hewitt sued for breach of contract and denial of due process; the trial court granted summary judgment for the School, the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
The Supreme Court considered whether teacher-termination statutes and the contract’s hearing language applied to termination of an administrator’s contract when the underlying teacher contract was not being cancelled, and whether Hewitt received constitutional due process.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the teacher‑termination statute (Ind. Code § 20‑28‑7.5) or contract hearing language applies to cancellation of an administrator’s contract when the underlying teacher contract remains	Hewitt: contract language and incorporation of teacher‑dismissal laws entitle him to the statute’s private conference and just‑cause procedures for his principal contract	School: statute and contract language apply only to cancellation of the underlying teacher contract; principal termination procedures are distinct	Held: statute and contract hearing language apply only to cancellation of the underlying teacher contract, not to termination of an administrator’s contract alone
Whether the school breached the contract by failing to establish just cause for terminating the principal contract	Hewitt: School needed to prove his conduct impaired his ability to lead and follow statutory procedural protections	School: board discretion and home‑rule authority permitted action based on admitted misconduct without statutory teacher‑termination procedures	Held: No breach; statutory protections did not apply and the School acted within its authority
Whether Hewitt was denied procedural due process (right to a meaningful pre‑deprivation hearing)	Hewitt: process was inadequate—no full evidentiary hearing, no cross‑examination, inadequate notice of the basis, and bias	School: Hewitt received notice, counsel, opportunity to respond and to present witnesses; additional formal procedures offered little value given Hewitt’s admission	Held: Hewitt received sufficient constitutional due process under Mathews v. Eldridge balancing; summary judgment for the School affirmed
Whether board bias or prejudgment invalidated the private conference	Hewitt: board had prejudged and was not neutral	School: no evidence of disqualifying bias; Hewitt had opportunity to speak and did not present witnesses	Held: No evidence of unconstitutional bias; decisionmaker neutrality not undermined

Key Cases Cited

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (pre‑termination due process requires a name, explanation, and opportunity to respond)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three‑part test for what process is due)
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1970) (procedural due process requires meaningful hearing)
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1975) (probability of unfairness disqualifies decisionmakers)
Hortonville Joint Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Hortonville Educ. Ass'n., 426 U.S. 482 (U.S. 1976) (public statements on policy do not automatically disqualify decisionmakers)
Chambers v. Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Green County, 514 N.E.2d 1294 (Ind. 1987) (principal’s contract protections tied to cancellation of underlying teacher contract)
New Castle‑Henry Twp. Sch. Corp. v. Hurst, 247 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. App. 1969) (reassignment/termination of principal contract need only oral notice where teacher contract remains)
State ex rel. Cleary v. Bd. of Sch. Com’rs of City of Indianapolis, 438 N.E.2d 12 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (principal’s written contract supplements rights as a permanent teacher; teacher‑statute protections do not automatically extend to principal role)
Joseph v. Lake Ridge Sch. Corp., 580 N.E.2d 316 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (teacher‑termination statute applies only where the underlying teacher contract is cancelled)
Caston Sch. Corp. v. Phillips, 689 N.E.2d 1294 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (protections for principals under Teachers’ Tenure Law are limited)