In re Donna THOMAS.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CAPE GIRARDEAU SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 63, Plаintiff/Respondent,
v.
Donna THOMAS, Employee/Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
*164 Albert C. Lowes, Lowes & Drusch, Cape Girardeau, for Appellant.
Diane C. Howard, Limbaugh, Russell, Payne & Howard, Cape Girardeau, for Respondent.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 10, 1996.
CRANDALL, Judge.
Donna Thomas (teacher) appeals from the judgment of the trial court affirming the decision of the Board of Education of Cape Girardeau School District No. 63 (Board) to dismiss teacher from her tenured teaching position. The Board terminated teacher's contract for immoral сonduct. See § 168.114.1 (2), RSMo (1994). We affirm.
Teacher had taught ninth grade English in Cape Girardeau District No. 63 since 1975. Her teaching record was exemplary. Teacher and her husband were living apart, and her husband was involved with Ms. Cheryl Litzelfelner. On July 23, 1994, teacher drove to her estranged husband's home and parked her car behind Litzelfelner's car. The pair exchanged words, and teacher then went inside the house. Meanwhile, Litzelfelner scratched "bitch" on teacher's car, got into her own car and prepared to leave. Teacher came out of the garage with a Smith and *165 Wesson .357 caliber revolver and began firing in Litzelfelner's direction. The first bullet went through the driver's side door and entered Litzelfelner's lower right leg. Litzelfelner managed to speed away through the front yard while teacher continued to fire at her car. All in all, four shots were fired, with three bullets actually hitting the car, including the bullet that injured Litzelfelner.
Since the incident occurred in the summer, the junior high school principal, Dr. Barnes, did not hear about it until two days later. On July 30, 1994, Barnes met with teacher to hear her version of the incident. The Board brought charges against teacher on August 18, 1994, alleging immoral cоnduct and seeking termination of her contract.
At the September 12, 1994 public hearing, the assistant prosecutor testified to the pending charges against teacher, and also testified tо a 1993 property damage misdemeanor involving Litzelfelner for which teacher received a suspended sentence. He further testified that he had heard of the estranged husband's affаir and of a prior confrontation between teacher and Litzelfelner. The junior high principal then testified that students and teachers were aware of the shooting. The human resources director testified that the teacher's violent action would confuse students who are taught that "we are a gun-free, violence-free environment." In addition to the moral dilemma presented to the students, the director testified that having teacher continue in her position would create a difficult situation for other teachers and parents because her actions contravened school policy and her role as an authority figure and role model for students. The superintendent of schools testified that he had received a call frоm the teachers' association expressing concern. The association had received a number of calls about the shooting and teacher's continued employment.
At thе September 27, 1994 Board meeting, teacher's contract was terminated by unanimous Board vote. On September 30, 1994, the Board's decision, including twenty-seven findings of fact and three conclusions of law, was signed by the Board president and a copy delivered to teacher's attorney.
Teacher first contends the Board improperly defined immoral conduct and that the evidence presented was insufficient to show a nexus between her conduct and performance of her duties.
Since teacher's challenge is to the Board's interpretation of the law to the facts, the scope of review is less restricted than pure factual dispute. Youngman v. Doerhoff,
"Immoral conduct" is that conduct which renders a teacher unfit for the performance of her duties. Ross v. Robb,
Teacher аrgues that immoral conduct means conduct which affects performance only when such conduct occurs on school grounds, directly involves students or school property, or оccurs only when a teacher is acting in her official capacity. Although such factors may be relevant, the determination of immoral conduct is not limited to those situations. Youngman,
Once conduct is found immoral, then it must be determined if such conduct renders teacher unfit to teach. Ross,
Teacher argues that it is necessary to show the conduct actually harmed her performance to meet the required nexus. This assertion is contrary to established law, since only a likelihood that the teacher's conduct will have an adverse effect on students or other teachers need be demonstrated. Thompson,
Teacher further argues that § 168.114.1(6) protects her due process rights by making it necessary for the Board to wait until she was convicted before it could terminate her contract. The statute says in part: "(1) An indefinite contract with a permanent teacher shall not be terminated by the Bоard [ ] except for one of the following causes: ... (2) Immoral conduct; ... (6) Conviction of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude." § 168.114, RSMo (1994). Teacher was not terminated for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, but rather, for immoral conduct. The Board did not violate teacher's due process rights by proceeding with its action without waiting for resolution of the criminal charges. See Clark v. Wentzville R-IV School District,
Teacher's final point is that the Board's decisiоn was not in final reviewable form because it was drafted after the Board meeting and signed only by the Board president, so the findings of fact outlined in the Decision were not made by the Board. Tеacher cites to Stewart v. Board of Educ. of Ritenour Consol. School Dist. in support of this assertion.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
CRAHAN, P.J., and DOWD, J., concur.