News

This month the Legal Digest reports on three Commissioner’s decisions regarding termination of a teacher contract.  These three cases contain important lessons for school administrators and the lawyers who represent administrators and boards.    

In the first case, Garcia v. Corpus Christi ISD, the Commissioner determined a school board improperly overturned the finding of an independent hearing examiner that a special education teacher’s termination was not supported by good cause.  Crucially, the school district in that case failed to put forth evidence defining the standard of good cause to terminate a continuing contract.  In Gonzales v. Brownville ISD, the Commissioner denied the appeal of a superintendent who attempted to appeal his termination without citing specific grounds for overturning the hearing examiner’s recommendation. And in Bell v. Richardson ISD, the Commissioner denied the appeal of a special education teacher who was terminated for, among other performance problems, spitting on a student.  (See the March issue of the Legal Digest for complete summaries and citations.)

We spoke with Irving attorney Sandra Carpenter for an inside perspective on the significance of these termination cases.  A shareholder in the firm of Walsh, Anderson, Brown, Gallegos and Green, P.C., Carpenter has represented Texas school districts in employment and general education matters for over a decade.  Recently, she successfully guided Richardson ISD to its favorable decision before the Commissioner.  According to Carpenter, successfully terminating a contract involves three things: “planning, preparation and documentation.”  In Bell v. Richardson ISD, the District used detailed training documents and policies to show the hearing examiner that the teacher had received training in how to deal with aggressive students and was familiar with procedures that would have aided her in responding appropriately when the student spit at her.  These records demonstrated that “teachers were shown what to do and [had] reasonable options available to them instead of losing tempers,” says Carpenter, “a big plus” in making the District’s case to the Commissioner. 

Another key step involves meeting the standard of good cause to terminate a teacher contract.  Standards for good cause differ depending on the district and type of termination.  In an individual case, says Carpenter, “[y]ou definitely need to know what the standard is, be familiar with your burden of proof, and know what evidence it takes to meet that burden.”  In the Corpus Christi case, where the Commissioner noted that the District failed to put forth any evidence as to the standard—in that case, what a reasonably prudent educator in a similarly situated district would have done. This is the standard that applies in a continuing contract case.  Under that standard, the terminating district should have at least one witness who can testify about standards of conduct in “similarly situated” school districts.  Alternatively, the district could ask some of its own witnesses to testify regarding employment in a previous “similarly situated” district.  In the case of the Corpus Christi special education teacher who was terminated for allegedly using improper force on a student, the failure to provide this type of evidence made the district’s position more difficult.  The Commissioner observed that the district could prevail “only if it could show good cause per se,” which it failed to do.  Again, the hearing examiner’s view of the matter was crucial.  The use of inappropriate force could be considered “good cause per se” but the hearing examiner concluded that such force was not used. 

The challenge of overturning a hearing examiner’s recommendation is a theme in all three of the termination cases reported in the Legal Digest this month.  As the first neutral party to weigh the evidence in a case, the hearing examiner’s findings of fact are particularly persuasive.  In some cases, such as Garcia v. Corpus Christi ISD, the Commissioner may even re-categorize a hearing examiner’s legal conclusions as fact findings, making them extremely difficult to overturn on appeal.  According to Carpenter, overturning a hearing examiner’s recommendation is “all about the facts.”  A district must “comb the record to determine whether any findings are supported by no facts, or the evidence goes against that fact,” then make those arguments to the reviewing board. 

The argument of the case to the school board is more than a formality.  In Gonzales v. Brownsville ISD, the superintendent’s attorney did not specifically point out any legal errors in the hearing examiner’s decision.  The Commissioner held that this amounted to a “failure to exhaust administrative remedies.”  The Commissioner observed that the party who challenges the hearing examiner’s recommendation must “reasonably place a board of trustees on notice of claimed legal errors so that the school board has an opportunity to correct those legal errors.”   The duty to exhaust administrative remedies is a jurisdictional requirement. Thus, in the Brownsville ISD case, the Commissioner held that he had no jurisdiction. This had the effect of upholding the board’s decision to terminate the superintendent’s contract. 

Although it is still unusual for a termination case to go all the way to the Commissioner, Carpenter says she is seeing more cases go to hearing than ever before.  Clearly, in the event a case goes all the way, what makes a difference is preparation and planning. According to Carpenter, the secret to a successful termination case begins in the hiring process:  “What makes a difference is preparation.  Do what you can on the front end—give teachers options and training and be prepared to follow up when they don’t use it.  Be willing to hold the line.” 

The three cases nicely illustrate the interplay between procedure and substance, as well as the roles played by the hearing examiner, school board and Commissioner in cases involving termination of contract.