Chattooga County Board of Education v. SearelsChattooga County Board of Education v. Searels
Fоllowing a hearing before the Chattooga County Board of Education (“Local Board”), Fannie Searels, a special education teacher, was terminated frоm her employment based on charges of
insubordination, wilful neglect of duties, and “other good and sufficient cause,” pursuant to
Not unlike the State Board and the superior court, this Court as an appellate body applies the “any evidence” standard of review to the record supporting the initial decision of the Local Board.
Goldwire v. Clark,
Viewed in the light most favorable to the Local Board’s decision, the record shows that Searels, a tenured teacher, had taught at Chattooga County High School fоr eighteen years, the last four years of which were as a special education teacher. On August 9, 2007, Searels left a note on the desk of another teacher, indiсating that the teacher and another staff member “can put my students into ANY elective class — no matter how advanced — except PE — because they cannot do ANY of it anyway. This is just to please the parents.” The teacher, the father of an autistic student enrolled in the school, became upset when he found the note and turned it in to the principal, Morgan Nugent. On August 10, 2007, Nugent met with Searels to discuss the note and warned her to be more careful in her oral and written comments about her students, which “could be seen by other individuals . . . [as] inapprоpriate.”
On August 22, 2007, Searels was standing in the hallway discussing J. L., a special needs student who had cerebral palsy, with another teacher, Kevin Gilliland. During the conversation, Yolanda Wаde, a teacher’s assistant who worked with Searels, walked by, pushing J. L. in a wheelchair. According to Gilliland, Searels then told him that J. L.’s grandmother “thinks [J. L.’s] going to be an attorney or a doctor or a pharmacist, but he would probably be dead before he was 21.” J. L. was approximately two feet away from Searels when the comment was made. Wade hеard Searels’ conversation and believed that J. L. had also overheard it and became upset because he nodded his head in response to Searels’ statement.
On August 28, 2007, Searels wore a blue jean skirt to school that violated the dress code because the skirt’s length was too short. Two days later, Nugent called Searels into his office to discuss the inappropriate skirt and observed that Searels’ v-neck shirt exposed her bra and breasts. He then asked Searels to pin it up. On August 30, 2007, Nugent sent a written reprimаnd to Searels, advising her not to talk about students’ medical issues in the presence of parents or other students, to follow the dress code, and to review the teacher handbook and the code of ethics.
On October 12, 2007, Superintendent Dr. Dwight Pullen sent Searels a letter notifying her that he was recommending termination of her contract for insubordination, wilful neglect of duty and “other good and sufficient cause.” Further, Dr. Pullen charged Searels with removing a student’s prescription medication from the school in violation of sсhool policy.
After a hearing on October 23, 2007, the Local Board found that Searels
committed acts of insubordination and acts constituting willful neglect of duty by repeated violations of the dress code, by making inappropriate oral comments about a student with disabilities in the student’s presence, and by removing from school and taking to her home prescription medication of a student.
The Board also found that “other good and sufficient cause” existed for Searels’ termination based on her “lack of professional judgment and inappropriate attitude toward students as evidenced by the above described acts as well as other actions, including preparing an inаppropriate written note and making inappropriate oral statements relating to students.”
The Local Board argues that the superior court erred in reversing its decision and that of the State Board by re-weighing the evidence, contrary to the “any evidence” standard of review. We agree.
Georgia’s Fair Dismissal Act, codified at
(a)
Insubordination and wilful neglect of duties.
Given thаt insubordination and wilful neglect of duties both involve an intentional violation or refusal to comply with a known rule, we address these grounds together. In
Brawner v. Marietta City Bd. of Ed.,
Here, the record showed that on August 10, 2007, Nugent met with Searels to discuss a written note she had placed on another teacher’s desk denigrating the abilities of her students to perform elective classes. He warned Searels not to make inappropriate comments, either orally or in writtеn form, about her students, which could be perceived by others as reflecting poorly on the school’s expectation for its students. Searels admitted that it was an error оf judgment. Less than two weeks later, on August 22, 2007, Searels openly violated Nugent’s August 10 warning against commenting inappropriately about students by stating to a fellow teacher, in J. L.’s-presеnce, that J. L. “would probably be dead before he was 21 [ ]” despite his grandmother’s high hopes for him in the future. The evidence showed that J. L. heard Searels’ remark and he was very uрset by it. There was also evidence that Searels admitted removing a student’s prescription medication from school, contrary to school policy.
Given the forеgoing, we conclude that the Local Board’s decision to terminate Searels for insubordination and wilful neglect of duties was supported by the evidence, and the supеrior court’s ruling to the contrary was error.
Goldwire,
supra,
(b)
“Other good and sufficient cause. ”
The term “other good and sufficient cause” has not been specifically defined by our courts; however, wе have held that derogatory comments made to a teacher concerning a student provides such a basis for a teacher’s termination.
See Rabon v. Bryan County Bd. of Ed.,
Based on the foregoing, we reverse the decision of the
Judgment reversed.