Robinson v. Morrill Cty. Sch. Dist. 63
910 N.W.2d 752
Neb.2018Background
- Patrick Robinson was hired as curriculum and assessment coordinator at Bridgeport Public Schools in 2013; the board voted to cancel his certificated contract in February 2015 after a formal hearing.
- Incidents leading to the cancellation included: a November 2013 Veterans Day parking dispute; a December 2013 locker incident in which teachers reported concern about a student–Robinson interaction (administration investigated and cleared Robinson); and ongoing workplace conflict thereafter.
- Robinson increasingly isolated in his office, refused to attend staff meetings or collaborate, covertly recorded meetings, accused administrators and teachers of harassment, and sent antagonistic emails.
- The superintendent suspended Robinson with pay in September 2014; the board later provided written notice and held a March 6, 2015 hearing at which the board (with an attorney presiding as hearing officer) received evidence and unanimously voted to cancel Robinson’s contract.
- Robinson petitioned for error review in district court, which affirmed; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Robinson) | Defendant's Argument (Board/School) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice of March 6, 2015 hearing (Open Meetings Act) | Board failed to give proper notice because board customarily published in newspaper and minutes didn’t state method for that meeting | Notice was posted at three designated local places consistently used by the board and recorded in past minutes; public and Robinson had actual notice | Notice was proper under Open Meetings Act; omission in minutes irrelevant |
| Use of a hearing officer/board counsel to preside | Use of a hearing officer was not statutorily authorized (not a Class IV/V district) | §79-513 authorizes boards to hire counsel; retained attorney only conducted the hearing and advised the board, not the factfinder contemplated by Class IV/V statute | Use of counsel to preside was permissible; not the statutorily defined Class IV/V hearing officer role |
| Board impartiality / procedural due process | Board was biased (prior knowledge, hearing officer participation, consideration of materials outside record, closed session) | Board members had little prior info beyond Robinson’s own complaints; hearing officer limited role; procedures prevented consideration of unadmitted exhibits; Robinson didn’t object to closed session | Presumption of impartiality not overcome; board impartial; no preserved objection to closed session; due process satisfied |
| Admissibility of prior-contract-period conduct | Only conduct between Aug 13–Sept 4, 2014 was relevant to current contract cancellation | Board may consider all relevant conduct, including prior-period events that explain current performance problems | Evidence from prior contract period admissible because it was intertwined with later conduct and relevant to fitness to serve |
| Sufficiency of evidence to cancel contract (incompetency, neglect, unprofessional conduct, insubordination) | Evidence was insufficient; isolated or occasional issues do not establish grounds | Evidence showed ongoing refusal to collaborate, secret recordings, dishonesty about curriculum orders, hostile conduct that disrupted work environment | Sufficient evidence as a matter of law supported findings of incompetency, neglect, unprofessional conduct, and insubordination |
| Challenge to suspension with pay (procedural due process pre-suspension) | Suspension violated due process | Issue not pleaded at trial level | Not preserved for appellate review; not considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- McQuinn v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 66, 259 Neb. 720 (board action and judicial review standard) (standards for reviewing school-board termination decisions)
- Schauer v. Grooms, 280 Neb. 426 (2010) (customary and consistent notice methods can satisfy Open Meetings Act)
- J.S. v. Grand Island Public Schools, 297 Neb. 347 (2017) (appellate courts reach independent conclusions on legal issues)
- Hollingsworth v. Board of Education, 208 Neb. 350 (1981) (school board may consider conduct across employment when deciding termination)
- Schulz v. Board of Education, 210 Neb. 513 (1982) (similar principle: prior conduct may be considered)
- Boss v. Fillmore Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 19, 251 Neb. 669 (1997) (competency measured against peers, not perfection)
- Daily v. Board of Ed. of Morrill Cty., 256 Neb. 73 (1999) (unprofessional conduct must relate to fitness to serve)