200 F. Supp. 3d 649
N.D. Miss.2016Background
- Angela McMullen was a special-education teacher who transferred to Armstrong Middle School and was under a fixed-term contract running through May 26, 2015; the School Board also renewed her for 2015–2016.
- McMullen took medical leave beginning April 16, 2015, sought FMLA paperwork but was told she was not eligible unless she had already missed four consecutive days.
- While absent she asked the school to mail or hold her renewed contract; she did not sign it and was absent through May 21.
- On or about May 21 McMullen met with Principal Bourne and Superintendent Holloway and was informed she was terminated; a termination letter dated May 21 was issued and the School Board ratified termination on May 22 (effective May 21).
- McMullen sued the District and Bourne and Holloway in their individual and official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of procedural and substantive due process (and other claims); Bourne and Holloway moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Property interest in continued employment | McMullen had a protected property interest in: (1) remaining on her fixed‑term contract through May 26 and (2) the automatically renewed 2015–2016 contract | Defendants contend Mississippi abandonment statute voided any entitlement, so no protected interest | Court: McMullen had a clearly established property interest (fixed‑term contract + statutory automatic renewal + board renewal); state abandonment statute cannot eliminate federal due‑process protection (Loudermill) |
| Procedural due process (pre‑ and post‑termination procedures) | McMullen argues she was terminated without constitutionally adequate pre‑termination process and without a meaningful post‑termination hearing | Defendants argue any hearing was unnecessary under state abandonment law and that post‑deprivation state law remedies suffice (Parratt/Hudson) | Court: Genuine fact issue whether minimal pretermination protections occurred; in any event, no adequate posttermination hearing was provided and Parratt/Hudson do not apply. Qualified immunity denied on procedural due‑process claim |
| Substantive due process (arbitrary/capricious discharge) | McMullen contends termination as an abandonment finding was arbitrary and capricious | Defendants assert they acted on professional judgment based on prolonged absence, lack of lesson plans/communication, and email suggesting she may not return | Court: Plaintiff failed to show decision was arbitrary or capricious. Defendants’ actions were not objectively unreasonable. Qualified immunity granted on substantive due‑process claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (setting summary judgment burden)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (property cannot be defined by procedures for deprivation; predeprivation process required)
- Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (limits Parratt/Hudson where predeprivation hearing feasible)
- Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (Parratt/Hudson doctrine on random, unauthorized deprivations)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (Parratt/Hudson doctrine)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity sequencing and analysis)