Jackson v. Delta Special School District No. 2

agree with BickneU’s assertion bring Gray standing to his individual lacks fiduciary for breach of against Bicknell

claim law, an individual ac-

duty. Missouri Under fiduciary requires an duty breach of

tion for injury between the and nexus

individual fiduciary duty, and

injury and the breach met

Gray facts that did not establish basis, part affirm

standard. On part.

and reverse JACKSON, Appellant,

Vickie DISTRICT, SPECIAL SCHOOL

DELTA Smead, individually 2; and Ronald

NO. Superinten- capacity his official as Special District No. of Delta School

dent individually Mankin,

2; and in Hollis capacity of the as a

his official member Special Directors of Delta

Board of Lee, 2; indi- District No. Linda

School capacity

vidually as and in official Board of Directors of

member of the 2; Special No. Jer- District

Delta School

ry Wilson, individually in his and Don capacity as a member of the

official Special of Delta

Board of Directors 2; Simpson, District No. Cecil

School capacity

individually official his of Directors a member of Board 2; Special District No.

of Delta School individually

Mary Scales, in her of- capacity the Board as a member of

ficial Special Dis-

of Directors of Delta School individually 2; Wargo,

trict No. Linda capacity as member her official Spe- Board Directors of Delta 2, Appellees. School District No.

cial

No. 95-2941. Appeals, States Court

United

Eighth Circuit. Feb. 1996.

Submitted June

Decided Aug.

Rehearing Denied year, year. At the this school end Schools, Gunn, Superintendent of Mr.

Delta’s district, applied left the school position. did not interview Delta position, for this and it hired Ronald Jackson July Smead, for work report was to who request superintendent At 1992. Gunn, promoted principal Jackson was high grades kindergarten through all from school. at “upset” admitted that she was superinten- being interviewed for the response, she carried on position.

dent’s by the district court as a what was described type and the worst “campaign vilification rumormongering against false and witness Granting Judgment Ronald Smead.” Order (June 1995). vendetta, “This N.O.V. at 6 consisting derogatory charges of the most id., imaginable,” began shortly before Smead throughout ensu- arrived and continued year. ing school Roachell, Rock, Ar- Little Richard Wilson court, As the district sto- “[t]he noted (argued), appellant. for kansas truly spread about Smead were outra- ries (ar- Gibson, Dermott, Arkansas S. Charles geous. The most serious was he was a appellees. gued), for Evelyn Beatty, drug Id. 7. dealer.” at secretary, Jackson, testified that WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and Before occasion, one mentioned to on more than MAGILL, Judges. Circuit was Beatty drug and that Smead others me had dealer: “She told that she an inside MAGILL, Judge. Circuit department police at the state and source Jackson, Special principal of Delta Vickie had told her that Mr. Smead was he (Delta), brought District No. School drug trafficking.” investigation for under by Delta alleging her termination action Morales, Beverly book- Tr. Smead’s at 308. gender in retaliation her was keeper, spread these confirmed that Jackson Employ- Equal claim with discrimination rumors, “said that she noting that Jackson (EEOC). Af- Opportunity Commission ment and, police accord- had a in the state source favor, the district found ter source, ing Mr. was deal- to this Smead motion granted Delta’s renewed up ing drugs cars would come because ap- judgment as a matter of law. Jackson very yard stay long leave. his and not and ruling court’s and peals both that, dealing drugs.” Tr. And he was as school failure to order her reinstatement at 296. jury found that Delta vio- after the principal Fair Dismissal lated the Arkansas Teacher favorite rumors was Another (ATFDA), § 6-17-1501 Ark.Code Ann. Act Edward Bur- was a womanizer. Smead 1993). (Michie re- part affirm in nett, district, employee of the school testi- an part. verse in that, took over as even before Smead fied spreading such superintendent, Jackson I. where told me that he had rumors: “she with a formerly worked that she had talked hired as the elementa- Vickie and she had told something or the 1991-92 teacher ry principal of Delta for having that he womanizer and was an creating Jackson succeeded in an intoler- affair.” at 273. atmosphere Tr. Beatty able at tension Delta. noted that Jackson’s continued statements calling Not a drug content with Smead problem caused a at the school and affected womanizer, spread dealer and Jackson also Beatty’s productivity. Beatty eventually re- drinking had problem rumors that Smead layed Jackson’s comments to Smead because and that a DWI at one time.” Tr. “there was the comments problem” “became such a Jackson also mentioned to Morales so “caused much tension” and because Jack- prob- Beatty had Smead financial co-employees son’s “couldn’t work with it.” lems other districts with which he had Tr. Morales confronted Jackson been associated. negative about the According comments. to pages Nowhere Jackson’s Morales, testimony deny spreading trial she ever does rumors; quibbles these at just up [s]he [Jackson] best she over the would come to me terminology anyone and, you know, just exact she used. As the district or to start noted, talking, just saying things start about Mr. had, she Smead---- And at that I you She said had never heard the word time before, know, busy my job was “womanizer” “... real guess but I and I’d had [I] my got fill of something listening ...” it. I could have said at tired to [Tr. her. mean, I I probably didn’t ask 331]. She said to hear it. I “trouble with told her finally just I was 338]. women” at tired of her shit. [Tr. She admitted mak- ing derogatory to remarks Ms. Morales Beatty at and Ms. She [Tr. 333]. admitted mad; But upset just, I was I was and I telhng the women Mr. Smead had “some that’s what I said. I said I was tired problems drugs at Kingsland” over every breath being that I heard from her using “drug but denied the term dealer” negative about Mr. I I Smead. said inwas 333-34], at [Tr. just middle ... I and was sick of Order at 9. also telling Jackson admitted to hearing about it. co-employees drinking that Smead had a Tr. at 284. When if asked she considered problem charge. resulted DWI Tr. professional, Jackson’s conduct to be Morales 42,170. Finally, when Jackson was asked responded “no.” during cross-examination if she had ever co-employees “[a]ny mentioned to her 1993, January 4, On Smead relieved Jack- about, financial drug trouble we’ve talked son of her disciplinary regarding high duties dealing you or whatever terms used and school students and bus students. Jackson women,” trouble with Jackson responded, complained to the school board that this ac- “Yes, sir, certainly, did, I I mentioned them. gender tion constituted discrimination. Al-

yes.” Tr. at 346. though there discipline was evidence that spreading Jackson’s motive for these ru- high school had suffered while Jackson distraught mors is clear: she at not charge, was in the school board reinstated receiving superintendent position and so disciplinarian Jackson as chief at its Febru- she “embarked on a to vendetta make life ary meeting. The board denied that miserable for Smead.” at 2. Order Morales against Smead had discriminated Jackson. testified that Jackson stated that the school 26, February On Jackson filed an right” “hadn’t treated her in not in- charge claiming EEOC that Smead’s action terviewing superintendent’s her for posi- gender constituted discrimination. The tion and that “she could make [Jackson] ev- EEOC chose to accept instead miserable,” eryone Tr. at and that “the issuing right Jackson a to sue letter. Jack- board knowing had hired Mr. Smead his son chose not file a allega- lawsuit on this background and that she could [Jackson] tion of discrimination. make a call to newspapers and make it everyone.” hard for this, March, Tr. early at 287. On Smead decided to recom- certainly kept her word. mend to the Delta school board that it ter- it, thereby hearing requested in- her a after she cited thirteen Smead mínate Jackson. requiring her reinstatement. and fifteen unprofessional conduct stances inefficiency and insubordination instances jury a verdict for returned Jackson. year as during previous by Jackson (1) jury that: Jackson was denied found proposed dismissal.1 grounds for (2) process; procedural due Jackson would terminated, she Before have terminated even if she had re- been present her case opportunity to an afforded (3) process;2 ceived due on was notified board. She February complaint 1993 EEOC was a hearing before April that a motivating factor the defendant’s decision p.m. for 8 had been set school board (4) her; discharge if Jackson had not filed However, attorney ad- February complaint, 1993 EEOC she ATFDA that under the vised her (5) terminated; would not have hearing, and thus she was order could ATF- failed with the defendants meeting obligation to set attend under $185,000 DA. The awarded Jackson Jackson chose up school board. compensatory damages.3 meeting, at which the school attend the formally discharged her. At for The defendants filed a renewed motion board pay or, meeting, voted to Jack- law in judgment the school board as matter of the alter- a salary native, of the contract granted her until the end for a trial. The court son new judgment as matter of law on retalia- year. a the claim, holding jury’s the tion that verdict was 3, 1993, attorney a May sent On by The unsupported the record. district president the Delta the of letter to that noted open hearing, but requesting an Jack- board response to the letter. son received plaintiffs disloyalty him view of to [i]n [Smead], the slanderous statements made 11, 1993, a filed second June Jackson On drug he a EEOC, to his subordinates —that was with the charge discrimination of drinker, dealer, problem and womanizer in termination was retalia- claiming that her difficulties, super- in financial the involved February dis- filing for her 1993 tion had no choice but to ask the intendent Jackson claim with the EEOC. crimination to fire her. He would have been a board the right letter from sue received fool to do otherwise. brought in this suit federal EEOC. She Delta, Smead, court, alleging that granted, also in the at 10. The court Order (1) proce- violated her and the school board alternative, a new trial on this claim. by terminating her process rights dural due (2) the agreed district court against filing her for the The retaliated and violated, but, had con- that ATFDA been with the EEOC gender discrimination claim termi- cluding would have been February supplemental 1993. In Jackson in damages pursuant anyway, 28 nated it awarded nominal brought law claim state rein- alleged that and refused to order Jackson’s $1 1367 U.S.C. by granting statement. the ATFDA Delta violated trial, have been in- Jackson would terminated During that several Because Jackson admitted recommending by upon process, Smead in received due the court cidents relied even had she testi- did in fact occur. damages only $1 her termination on this awarded nominal Chauvin, not remember some of fied that she could 938 See Brewer v. F.2d claim. few, incidents, as she testified other (en banc). (8th Cir.1991) damages This 862-64 they occur. did not appealed. award has not complaint filing of the EEOC the reasons for termination. not listed as one of argument, for Jackson broke 3. At oral counsel filing trial if Jackson's When asked at $100,000 $185,000 as award follows: down termination, complaint a factor retaliatory damages compensatory for the dis- as “not sole it was Smead twice stated $85,000 damages compensatory charge, and as however, reason"; ques- response to further ATFDAviolation. tions, filing of com- Smead stated plaint was not a factor in the termination. 1494 2742, 2749,

II. 113 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Hutson, (1993); 63 F.3d at 777. reviewing grant In the district court’s parties concede that Jackson made a law, judgment apply aas matter of we prima showing discharged facie as the district same standard court. This retaliation February (1) requires standard that we resolve direct complaint. parties agree EEOC further nonmovant; factual favor conflicts legitimate, that Delta offered a nonretaliato- (2) supporting assume true all facts as ry Thus, reason the termination. nonmovant which the evidence tended to must examine whether Jackson has (3) prove; give the nonmovant the benefit of third-stage made the showing prof- (4) inferences; deny all reasonable fered reasons for termination were pretext if motion the evidence so viewed would allow agree for retaliation. We with the district jurors to reasonable differ to the conclu court that Jackson has not met this burden. Indus., be drawn. Dace ACF sions Inc., (8th Cir.1983). 722 F.2d overwhelming There was evidence ad duced at trial that the main reason for Jack considering retaliatory discharge insubordination, son’s termination was her claims, three-stage proof we use the order inefficiency, atmosphere and the divisive presumptions governing discrimination Delta, leading created actions at v. Chrysler in general. Schweiss Mo cases productivity decreased co-employ of her (8th Corp., Cir.1993). tors 987 F.2d ees. initially Plaintiff prima must establish a facie by showing participation case of retaliation First, Jackson herself admitted that sever- protected activity, subsequent adverse ac al of the incidents outlined in Smead’s termi- by employer, tion the causal connection nation letter of 9 in did fact occur. University between the two. Kobrin v. Second, Jackson spreading truly admitted to Minnesota, (8th Cir.1994). 34 F.3d 704 outrageous Smead, rumors about including prima made, showing Once facie is the in drugs, he was involved was a woman- production burden of employer izer, shifts to the drinking problem, had had financial legitimate, to articulate a nondiscriminatory problems, and was often absent from the Id. reason for actions. its school district. co-employees Her corrobo- rated testimony. this employer If the meets that bur terribly Jackson’s comments disrup- were den, presumption the by of retaliation raised They tive at Delta. caused extreme tension prima the showing disappears facie and we school, at the co-employees, and her tired evaluate presented whether Jackson vitriol, listening to per- Jackson’s could not capable proving evidence proffered form agree their duties. We with the district reasons for pretext termination were a the overwhelming evidence ad- See v. retaliation. Hutson McDonnell duced at trial demonstrates that Jackson was Douglas Corp., 63 F.3d (8th Cir. school; “a terribly disruptive influence the 1995). She do directly, “by per can this do, as she threatened to she made life miser- suading discriminatory the court that a [or able employees with whom she had retaliatory] likely reason more motivated contact.” Order “It would have been Dep’t Texas employer,” Comm. Af impossible for Mr. Smead to have on carried Burdine, 450 U.S. fairs his duties when his principal subordinate 1089, 1095, S.Ct. 67 L.Ed.2d 207 or spread the most vicious rumors his behind indirectly, “by showing employer’s back employees to other Id. of the district.” proffered explanation unworthy of cre dence,” id. evidence, Such Against indirect in con great weight evidence, junction prima with merely facie persists Jackson in contending that she permits, require, but does not discharged filing in retaliation for the Febru- conclude ary that Jackson has been the victim complaint. points EEOC She of unlawful Mary’s See St. retaliation. things evidencing discharge three that her Hicks, Honor Ctr. v. 502, 510-11, (1) 509 U.S. retaliatory: timing of the termi- Smead, just (2) Something documentation.

nation; by re- a comment made something later, place, taken filing show that had moments tracted question immediately sug- all.” One that’s “not sole complaint was of the EEOC (3) gests complaint. the retaliation termination; itself as to Delta’s for her reason” by firing Why would the board retaliate the ATFDA’s remedia- with failure to 6-17-1504, complaint making a EEOC her Ann. Ark.Code provision, tion aware, they agreed when had with her Febru- made be requires which that Jackson complaint perfor- ary when she same her problems writing, filed with the board? When she filed retali- could lead to termi- existed that mance June, complaint four ation months later nation. chief board had restored her as disci- First, by timing— are troubled before, plinarian several months back spreading had the slanderous Jackson been February____ gave her The board satis- ever Smead first about Smead since rumors complaint. on her “I had inten- faction had superintendent, and Smead became filing EEOC found tion of a lawsuit.” The of insubordination and detailing the instances February for her com- no basis ever long filed incompetence before pursue plaint. She did lawsuit Second, complaint. the statement the EEOC charge every legal which had best, im- by ambiguous at and its Smead is Yet, four right to do. months after the damag- by far portance is overshadowed filed, February charge was she claimed re- by that she did ing made admissions allegation patently pre- taliation. This justifying engage her ter- actually in conduct jury’s textual. The answer to affirmative remediate, Finally, the failure to mination. Interrogatory utterly any 3 is No. without may be evidence which some situations basis in evidence. teacher, “get” is out that a school district (citations (emphasis 11-12 Order at addend) so far is likewise overshadowed omitted). hardly any as to offer evidence of admissions all. pretext at allegation retaliatory agree that the discharge “patently pretextual.” Delta of- surrounding the events When evidence, overwhelming including fered February complaint are 1993 EEOC spread own she admissions that whole, that the as a it is clear school viewed slanderous, unsubstantiated rumors about any retaliatory not animus board did harbor Smead, superintendent Jackson’s dis- when it dismissed Jackson. When retaliatory. charge was not Given Jackson’s post discipli- chief was removed from the of comments, superintendent “the had narian, complained to the school she first but to ask the board to fire her. He choice was the school board’s re- board. What have a fool to do otherwise.” Id. would cogently analyzed by the sponse? As district retaliatory claim dis- of court, charge fails. board, upon her com- based [t]he it, plaint the chief disci- restored as III. overruling Mr. Ata plinarian, Smead---- February, meeting in re- Jackson next claims that the district court of the board failing her and sponse plaintiffs complaint gen- to the of erred reinstate award discrimination, pay jury that her restored her her back after found board der Therefore, Specifically, violated the ATFDA. disciplinarian. the ba- dismissal as chief disappeared. charge notes that Delta’s failure to for the had she sis EEOC requires any a lawsuit the ATFDA voids dismissal denied intention of She upon charge. “No sir. That her reinstatement.4 based ATFDA, may superintendent’s termination recommen- a be dis- of the 4. Under teacher dation, grounds arbitrary, including the for the recommen- charged any for is not reason that § Ann. 6-17- capricious, discriminatory. Ann. dation of termination. Ark.Code or Ark.Code However, receiving thirty days being no- dis- Within such' before 6-17-1503. tice, request may a file a charged, must written notice the teacher written the teacher receive trial, judge that Delta failed to At found the conclusion deter- ATFDA, demonstrated, strictly comply mined that a with the and the Delta as matter law, justi- did this conclusion Jackson’s termination was district court not disturb court, judgment by fied. for a As noted upon Delta’s motion renewed agree a with this as matter law. [t]o reinstate this woman would be un- finding. undisputed It is that Jackson re thinkable, request and her for such reme- 3,1993, May quested hearing within the a on dy hereby terribly is denied. was a She thirty-day provided the ATFDA. window school; disruptive influence at the as she hearing not a as Delta did offer Jackson do, threatened she made life miserable required. This violates the ATFDA and employees with whom she had con- voids her termination. tact. responds required Delta that it not hearing Order at 13. Because before the provide hearing greater Jackson with after her school board can offer Jackson no request meeting opportunity judicial because it had earlier held a to be heard than did the 30, 1993, April forum, on to discuss her termination. is Jackson’s termination valid However, hearing satisfy did not the will not order reinstatement. requirements of Even the ATFDA. assum A more is difficult issue dam ing empowered un school districts are ages where reinstatement ordered. As sponte hearings der the statute to sua hold above, grant noted Delta’s failure to hear terminations, regarding the statute mandates ing requested by when Jackson voids her hearing days held be between five requires termination and that she be rehired days meeting ten after notice of the year for the 1993-94 school the same given. In this Jackson received notice salary previous and on the same terms 27, meeting April an year. Terry, See Western Grove Dist. v. Sch. insufficient amount of time under the statute. (1994). 318 Ark. 885 S.W.2d 302-03 Sch., See Lester v. Mount Vernon-Enola 323 Thus, minimum, aat must receive back (1996) (termi Ark. 917 S.W.2d year. pay for this Id. hearing nation void because held four However, Arkansas clear law offers no an- notice).5 days after swer as to whether teacher terminated in At issue then is the relief to which Jackson violation the ATFDA is entitled back is entitled. We must first decide whether subsequent pay years year to the immedi- reinstatement, Jackson is entitled to with a ately succeeding her termination. In Mar- pay. concomitant award back If County ion Rural School District No. 1 v. reinstatement, entitled to we must Rastle, 265 Ark. S.W.2d if any decide she is nevertheless entitled to decision, pre-ATFDA a school district failed pay back due to the violation of the ATFDA. give proper to a teacher notice of termination years. before the 1975-76 1976-77 school agree We with the district court that However, the court held the that teacher was appropriate

reinstatement is not in this ease. only year entitled back pay to one because goal The ATFDA is to ensure that only year the notice violation went to the hearing teacher receives fair before she is immediately following termination. Id. at in terminated. The trial case this met goal granted adversary an —Jackson hearing present hand, where she was able to wit On the other in Western Grove Strain, 507, nesses on behalf and cross-examine Del School District v. 288 Ark. 707 ta’s witnesses. S.W.2d 306 a teacher terminated hearing § before school board. Ark.Code Ann. 5. Delta also violated Ark.Code Ann. 6-17- § hearing place 1504, aware, 6-17-1509. The shall take not because Jackson was not made in days days less than five more ten nor than after writing, problems performance with her ex- request the written has been served on the school isted that could lead to her termination. strictly board. Id. Failure to with these hearing provisions notice and shall void the ter- mination. Ark.Code Ann. 6-17-1503. part that the result in III entitled We note reached the ATFDA was cause under without opinion consequence through rein- this is an unfortunate pay from termination to back that, Although any we The noted the ATFDA. feel that at 308. court Id. statement. job undeserved, in case is removed from award to Jackson this teacher for a school ATFDA, compelled by Arkansas to of the we are law award in violation without cause abeyance during year’s pay in one back to Jackson. contract was “her the dis- [challenging of the lawsuit pendency Id. teacher was reinstated

missal].” IV. trial, “compen- entitling her to be end of agree with the district court Jack- due unemployed period she sated discharge from Delta was not retalia- son’s Id. the school district.” to the actions of complaint. We tion for her the EEOC to her underlying rationale was that due agree ap- is not further that reinstatement reinstatement, consid- teacher should be case, although do con- propriate dur- employee of the school district ered an year of clude that Jackson is entitled to one As an pendency of the lawsuit. ing the pay remedy the violation the ATF- back period, entitled employee during this she was Accordingly, judgment DA. of the dis- compensation. part trict court is affirmed and reversed interpreta that the We believe best part, and the ease is remanded for a determi- applies only it where tion of Strain is salary nation of the value of the and other conclude, is ordered.6 We reinstatement benefits Jackson would have received for the cause, then, that the termination is for where year.8 1993-94 school ordered, that the is not so and reinstatement procedural and not of ATFDA violation HEANEY, Judge, concurring in Circuit substantive, Rastle, Strain, guides and not part dissenting part. our decision. respect With to whether Jackson was enti- reinstatement, in Part present tled to discussed In the majority opinion, I Ar- of trial be III of the dissent. not reinstated at the conclusion quite (good) point cause. law on this clear: a cause her was with kansas dismissal Thus, Strain, strictly comply not unlike in we do not consider termination does procedural requirements at Delta of the employee been an have Act Ark. Under Fair Dismissal up until time of lawsuit. Teacher (Michie Rastle, §§ procedural violation Code Ann. 6-17-1501—6-17-1510 effect 1993) (Fair Act), such, As goes ATFDA in Dismissal void. Thus, only. pay appropri- are succeeding year Jack reinstatement and back reminding I think it worth employment contract should be extend ate remedies. son’s pursuant this issue year, is entitled is before ed one jurisdiction, period.7 supplemental 28 U.S.C. pay only for this to our back Box, Inc., Strain, years’ pay was of two back v. Southern Wooden 253 Ark. the award (1972)). Although predicated solely upon a violation of S.W.2d reinstatement ATFDA, being may solely be because it would cause on the termination denied but rather McMahan, feelings,” subsequent see Leola Sch. Dist. v. without cause and on reinstatement "hard Strain, 308; (1986), where 289 Ark. 712 S.W.2d of the teacher. See 707 S.W.2d McMahan, only disruptive not but Dist. v. 289 Ark. reinstatement would be see also Leola Sch. environment, 903, 496, (1986) (noting learning that destructive the we 712 908 also S.W.2d requiring interpret that predicated would not the statute as result on reinstatement Strain teacher). remedy. Reply plus Brief three 8. Delta moved to strike Jackson's The states that reinstatement dissent Addendum, only remedy grounds that years’ on the material pay back the available the it dealt We in the district court record and that school violation of the ATFDA. not the board’s law, appeal. give previously disagree. issues not raised on courts must with Under Arkansas motion, construction, deny the the material was before an absurd this statutes reasonable Skelton, by judge raised Express 265 and is relevant issues Corp. v. district one. See Federal 187, 1, (1979) Hervey (quoting in its 9 Delta brief. Ark. 578 S.W.2d 1498 (1994). Accordingly, violation,

§ 1367 inter must Fair Dismissal Act the Arkansas pret question this state Ar law as would Supreme Court perfectly has been clear on kansas state courts. See United Mine Work the issue Rastle’s viability: continued Gibbs, 715, 726, 1130, ers 383 86 U.S. S.Ct. Rastle misplaced, “Reliance the since (1966). 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 statutory governing law teaching contracts changed by legislature____” had been the Following state Arkansas court decisions Strain, Grove Western Sch. Dist. v. 288 Ark. holding compliance no- substantial with 507, (1986). 707 S.W.2d majori- 308 The see, e.g., sufficient, requirements tice however, ty, ignores this instruction and the Sch., Murray v. Pub. Altheimer-Sherrill 294 that Rastle did not fact interpret the rele- (1988), Ark. 789 Arkan- S.W.2d Instead, vant argues statute. it legislature sas Fair amended the Dismissal case, violation which consists of a Act as follows: to comply failure with the Fair Dismissal nonrenewal, termination, A suspension, or procedural requirements, Act’s is more anal- by disciplinary other action a school dis- ogous to Rastle than to Strain because trict shall be void unless the school district Strain involved a termination that violated strictly complies provisions with all of this the Act’s requirement. “with cause” This subchapter appli- and the school district’s simply comport distinction does not with the personnel policies. cable statutory language, flatly which states 625, § 1 (amending 1989 Ark.Acts Ark.Code termination shall be void “unless the school 6-17-1503). § majority Ann. As the con- provisions with all complies of this cedes, District School did not subchapter.” Ann. Ark.Code 6-17-1503 requirements imposed by Fair Dis- added). (emphasis if statutory Even lan- dismissal, therefore, missal Act. The is void. guage ambiguous, were the decisions of Ar- void, If Jackson’s termination she has not interpreting kansas courts it are not. The been terminated and should be reinstated. Supreme Arkansas has Court held that rein- majority rejects as the reinstatement pay statement and back appropriate are rem- appropriate remedy. argues It edies for notice violations of the Fair Dis- “goal of [Fair Dismissal Act] is to ensure missal Act. See Western Grove Sch. Dist. v. teacher hearing receives fair before Terry, 318 Ark. 885 S.W.2d she is terminated. The trial in this case met (1994). We are bound do so as well. goal____” effect, Op. at 1496. majority holds that a trial majority is a sufficient suggests that a reasonable statutorily-established substitute for the dis- construction of the require statute would not procedures. missal This assertion is contra- impact reinstatement where its would be “de- by dicted statutory the clear language em- structive of the learning Op. environment.” ployed by the Fair Dismissal Act. n. 7. I majority’s share the concern learning environment, poten- but the Moreover, majority’s difficulty with the disruption represented by tial reinstating the question pay of back untenability belies the plaintiff in this case is no different any than position regarding of its reinstatement. Af- other Fair Dismissal by Act which defi- rejecting reinstatement, ter majority con- nition involves disciplinary action. The County cludes that under Marion Rural Sch. Supreme Arkansas explicitly Court has re- Rastle, Dist. No. 1 v. 265 Ark. 576 S.W.2d jected argument upon as a basis which procedural effect viola- can reinstatement be denied: tion of the Fair Dismissal Act in goes succeeding year. Op. appellant [T]he maintains that a court at 1497. The flaw with this grant assertion is that should reinstatement unless the Rastle, only authority major- cited given return of the teacher to a school’s ity for holding, its interpret did not the Fair environment will not cause unnecessary Act, Dismissal which was enacted disruption ensuing feelings. because of after subsequent decision. appellant cases in which has no authority cited school argued districts damages have proposition. Any time a school board year should be following limited to the one to is forced reinstate teacher it has dis- missed, may result. To re- feelings hard America, al.; al- that basis would et

fuse STATES reinstatement UNITED Tribe; Nooksack; [illegal Upper to its board succeed Muckleshoot low the Island; Skagit; Squaxin Lummi Indian action]. Tribe; Tribe; Indian Makah Swinomish McMahan, Ark. v. Leola Sch. Dist Community; Tulalip Tribe; Pu Tribal (1986). majority’s 712 S.W.2d Quileute Tribe; Tribe; yallup Indian Su from distinguish this same case attempt to Qui Tribe; Tribe; quamish Hoh Indian simply disruption here potential Nation; nault Indian Confederated Leola, board in supported. Like school Tribes Bands the Yakima Indian & its authority majority can cite Tribe; Nation; Nisqually Indian Plain interpretation.” “reasonable tiffs-Appellees, majority’s inter- One wonders whether v. by its law is not driven pretation of Arkansas WASHINGTON, STATE OF “any in this award to Jackson conclusion that al., Defendants, et Op. 1497. It ease undeserved----” however, recognized, that the must be and raised stakes conduct has district’s own Washington Association; Harvest Divers acknowledging its rather than of this suit: McMahon, Tom Intervenors- simple procedure comply with failure to Appellants. error, correcting it chose then result, As litigation. pursue a course America, al.; et UNITED STATES years, pay at issue three period of back Tribe; Nooksack; Upper Muckleshoot Although I just cannot de- one. instead of Skagit; Squaxin Island; Lummi Indian conduct, the Arkansas Gener- fend Jackson’s Tribe; Tribe; Indian Makah Swinomish gone considerable efforts Assembly has al Community; Tulalip Tribe; Pu Tribal competing interests of school to balance the Quileute Tribe; yallup Tribe; Indian pro- flexibility employee hiring Tribe; Suquamish Tribe; Hoh Indian afforded protections have been tection. Few Quinault Nation; Indian Confederated have employees, but those that school district of the Yakima Indian Tribes & Bands strictly respected. provided are to be Tribe, Nation; Nisqually Indian Plain unjust the result of that balance However tiffs-Appellees, instance, recognize may in this we must seem larger than the issues at stake that there are WASHINGTON, I am that were this present confident case. STATE OF future, reinstatement, al., Defendants, court to award et greater lengths go would school districts Clearly, this was state law. Association; legislature. The decision Inner Sound Crab Edward the intent of the Washington Dungeness unambig- Knudson; today only ignores Crab majority judicial Association; inter- statutory language and Ernest Sum uous Fishermen’s away mers, Intervenors-Appellants. navigate pretation, its strained effort state clearly-marked channels of from the 95-35442, 95-35446. Nos. Arkan- very purpose of the law frustrates Appeals, Court of United States legislature’s 1989 sas amendment.

Ninth Circuit. Argued Nov. and Submitted 12, 1996. Decided June

Case Details

Case Name: Jackson v. Delta Special School District No. 2

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Jun 26, 1996

Citation: 86 F.3d 1489

Docket Number: 95-2941

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.